Tuesday, 21 January 2014


ALERT: Germany and Ending Gold/Silver Manipulation...IT'S HAPPENING!
Slave Camp Profits BOOMING NSAuSA!

"The Congressional Research Service, aka “Congress’ Think Tank,” recently made public their report on Bitcoin, Bitcoin: Questions, Answers, and Analysis of Legal Issues. The fascinating report details in sparkling prose the history, uses, threats and regulatory implications of the world’s best-known cryptocurrency.

The report’s most interesting part deals with the impact Bitcoin might have on the Federal Reserve. According to these experts, widespread adoption of Bitcoin could severely curtail the effectiveness of the Fed’s monetary policy.

The report describes the Federal Reserve’s mission as aimed at achieving “stable prices, maximum employment, and financial market stability.” It’s impossible to know the counterfactual. But many are entirely unsatisfied with both the nation’s employment rate and the continui"


Corrupt Freemasons: I

FREE #BITCOIN TUTORIALS http://www.open-transactions.com

"BBC 'turned blind eye' to Savile sex offences on up to 1,000 boys and girls


Something strange about ISON- You might want to see this.


Monday, January 20, 2014


Sent: Monday, January 20, 2014 9:55:15 AM


Full Benjamin Fulford article-posting it all as you can't get it without a subscription

 Last week Pope Francis replaced four out of the top five officers overseeing the Vatican Bank in a move that sent shock-waves through the public leadership of many countries. In probably most countries of the world, when a new leader is installed, that person gets a visit from a cabal officer like Henry Kissinger who hands them a Vatican bank account book containing a huge bribe, according to sources including former CIA chiefs. The leaders are then told that if they do not accept the money and follow cabal orders they will be assassinated, driven out by scandal, or failing that, have their country invaded by US troops. For that reason, the change at the top of the Vatican bank is a sure sign something big is coming down.

Also last week Queen Elizabeth announced she was going to hand duties over to Prince Charles as well as to Princes William and Harry, starting a “gentle succession.” Elizabeth is thus following Queen Beatrix of Holland and the King of Belgium in resigning in recent years from positions that are traditionally held for life. The generational change in royal families is in preparation for a change at the very top of the financial system, a Rothschild family source said.

There is also a big storm brewing in China where a massive purge is expected to start in March with the complete replacement of
all provincial Secretaries (governors), all mayors and most senior bureaucrats, according to a Chinese government representatives in Tokyo. This purge is being directed by central government officials, many who have fled to the country side with their families to avoid the massive pollution choking many of China’s large cities. This move is being made in an attempt to quell a financial crisis caused by rampant overspending and corruption at local government levels, the representatives said.
Another interesting thing these sources had to say was that the Chinese government was thinking of starting up a state religion combining elements of Christianity, Confucianism and Mohism. The aim was to improve moral standards in China and strengthen social unity, they said.

There is also something brewing in North Korea and the Chinese are not happy about it, one official said. Two top North Koreans who were close to China were executed last week as part of the ongoing purge of perceived threats to Kim Jong Un, he said. In response China staged a massive military exercise with more than 100,000 troops along the North Korean border. “China now views North Korea as an enemy state,” he said.

This will be followed by a joint US and South Korean military maneuver also aimed at North Korea.
Also, basketball star Dennis Rodman was nabbed and taken in for questioning last week immediately after returning to the US from his well-publicized visit to North Korea. The official story is that he went to “an undisclosed alcohol rehabilitation center.”


Rodman was visiting North Korea as a personal representative of Barack Obama, according to North Korean sources. No doubt his “rehabilitators” will be trying to find out what that message was.
North Korean sources in Japan also say the new North Korean regime had threatened to hit Shanghai and Beijing with nuclear weapons as part of a power play to force the reunification of the Korean peninsula.
This may also be the real reason why government leaders in China and South Korea are willing to meet with Japan’s Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, who is closely linked to North Korea through his ties with the unification church.
The situation in Asia will probably not resolve itself until the removal of cabal control from the dollar and euro based financial system is completed.

To this end dramatic changes are continuing in the Middle East, power base of the US petrodollar. Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan has been purging Turkey, the original home of the Sabbatean mafia, with increasing success. He has removed 350 police officers and 20 prosecutors and is now purging Bankers and TV propagandists.

The Gulf Cooperation Council also sent a delegation to China last week to negotiate a surrender and were told to end the rift with Iran and the Shia/Sunni split in general. Responding to this, the Muslim world invited Iran into “full membership in the Al Quds (Jerusalem [i.e. Israel]) Committee of the 57-member Organization of Islamic Cooperation (IOC)”


Russia’s President Vladimir Putin is also going to visit Iran soon to help bring peace to the region.

The ongoing shift of Middle East power away from cabal control is of course going to affect Israel and the controllers of the old petro dollar system. Perhaps that is why the White Dragon Society was contacted last week and asked if it would be possible to go through Canada to make liquid some now frozen funding. This request coincided with the start of a four day visit to Israel by Zionist slave Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper.

The WDS is insisting on a jubilee, a redistribution of fraudulently obtained assets and the immediate start of a massive campaign to end poverty and stop environmental destruction.

The other move that is making cabalists nervous is the German government’s ongoing investigation of what happened to the 300 tons of gold it deposited with the Federal Reserve Board. So far only 5 tons have been returned and attempts to intimidate German Chancellor Angela Merkel with a beating in Switzerland (according to a CIA source) will probably backfire by driving the Germans into the Shanghai Cooperation Organization and out of NATO.
Another front in which the cabal is under severe attack is the ongoing exposure of elite pedophile networks in the UK and in the Vatican. In the UK, politicians are now being investigated in the ever widening scandal that is expected to eventual lead to Tony Blair and his fellow Nazis. In the Vatican, 400 priests have already been defrocked and the purge of child abusers is continuing.


The Cabalists will be gathering this week at the Davos World Economic Forum where they will make noises about the dangers of income inequality. In doing so, they will be like Marie Antoinette at the time of the French Revolution asking why the peasants did not eat cake, in other words they don’t have a clue about what is really going on and their sudden concern for the poor will be way too little, way too late.

In a sign that all is not well with the forum, Daniel Dal Bosco tried last week to contact the Dragon family about cashing historical bonds. Dal Bosco was followed very closely in 2009 after he absconded with a trillion dollars’ worth of Dragon family bonds and that trail led to a certain Giancarlo Bruno, head of the financial services division of the Davos forum. The fact that he is once again initiating contact can only be taken as a sign of desperation behind the scenes at Davos. Message to Dal Bosco: “you are being watched 24/7 and can be picked and arrested at any moment.” The same will be true of any other cabal official attempting to steal assets that belong to the people of the world and not to a criminal cabal.

The other ongoing sign of unravelling cabal control is the snowballing trend to legalize marijuana. Now that Colorado, Washington State and the nation of Uruguay have joined North Korea (they never made it illegal in the first place) in legalizing marijuana, and did so without facing any reprisals, many more countries (last week Morocco for example) will join the..
Visit stage2omega at: http://www.stage2omega.com/?xg_source=msg_mes_network



Solutions- 15/01/2014

Yesterday I wrote about the “Truth Movement” and its pitfalls and as a result I’ve been asked to give my views on what the solutions are to the problems we face1. Before I do that I will explain what makes me tick and what I am trying to achieve with Wake Up Promotions. Like I said in yesterday’s blog post I walked away from a very good job and a career in Law because the beliefs I developed made it impossible to be satisfied with living a lie. The rewards you receive for handing over your life to the current economic system are not worthy, I decided that instead of being played by the system I would try and make a difference. We need an army of people like me, we need people who are dedicated enough to bring around change and commit everything they have to make it happen, do or die, all in for change. And with that being said I am no different from any other person the only difference is I have faced up to reality instead of hiding away from it, I don’t get high at the weekends or drink myself into oblivion to mask the pain of living a mundane life, to mask the pain of oppression. I faced up to the fact that I was being played and decided to do something about it. People need to look at their lives and decide is this the way they truly want to live, when with current technology and knowledge a whole new way of life is possible. Our lives are controlled and dictated by an unswerving commitment to ideologies that do not work and are outdated. 
 I mentioned in yesterday’s blog post a passage from the Ragged Trousered Philanthropists and I am going to quote another one now: "

Anonymous Turkey ►Stop Corruption! from @AnonymousVideo on Vimeo.
Over on ZEROHEDGE; moar statements of the blindingly obvious:

"Overstock CEO Slams "Unethical" Krugman; Hopes "Bitcoin Destroys Central Banking""

Just in case, you're wondering, why we don't talk much about the FICTIONAL FINACIAL SYSTEM used to ROB EWE - The Pet Goat!

The Interview in full

The Rothschild-Rockefeller Cartel VS Humanity: Richard Grove


COMING v.4U HUMANity! :)


Monday, January 20, 2014

Bundesbank to Recall 30-50 Tons of Gold From New York in 2014

Big Intentions, Little Focus
Theresa Hitchens, Michael Katz-Hyman and Jeffrey Lewis
Under the administration of President George W. Bush, Pentagon rhetoric has increasingly
articulated a more robust vision of space as a future battlefield. This analysis details some of the
ongoing spending for research and development programs identified in current U.S. Air Force,
Missile Defense Agency (MDA), and Defense Advanced Research and Planning Agency (DARPA)
planning and budget documents related to ‘‘space control’’ and ‘‘space force projection.’’ This
analysis finds that current support for ‘‘space superiority’’ and ‘‘space control’’ systems remains
largely rhetorical *with little actual budgetary support. Unclassified technology development
programs included in the six-year Future Years Defense Plan are a decade or more away from
deployment. Programs related to offensive counterspace, space-based missile defense inter-
ceptors, and space-based strike total slightly less than $300 million in FY 2006 funding. We
conclude significantly higher expenditures in research and development would be required to
develop and deploy killer microsatellites, space-based missile defense interceptors, and military
space planes.
KEYWORDS: U.S. Air Force; Budget; Space; Control; Counterspace; Spending; Weapons;
Lasers; Anti-satellite
Under the administration of President George W. Bush, Pentagon rhetoric has increasingly
conveyed a more robust vision of space as a future battlefield. In August 2002, the Joint
Chiefs of Staff issued a doctrine document for space activities that articulated the concept
of ‘‘space superiority.’’1 Space superiority melds the U.S. military’s primary use of space for
support functions with two offensive missions: ‘‘space control’’ and ‘‘space force
application.’’ Subsequent Air Force documents elaborated the intention for the service
to take on ‘‘new military missions in the areas of space protection and projecting force in
and from space.’’2 These documents define space control as providing ‘‘freedom to attack
as well as freedom from attack’’ in space; whereas space force application as defined by
the Pentagon refers to missions undertaken by space-based assets against terrestrial and
on-orbit targets, as well as missile defense.3 This analysis details some of the ongoing
spending for research and development programs identified in current U.S. Air Force,
Missile Defense Agency (MDA), and Defense Advanced Research and Planning Agency
(DARPA) planning and budget documents related to space control and ‘‘space force
The funding tracked in the Department of Defense (DoD) budget request is arranged
in what U.S. physicist Richard Garwin calls ‘‘a technological sandbox’’ *small amounts
of funding for a jumble of basic research efforts on such systems/subsystems as
Nonproliferation Review, Vol. 13, No 1, March 2006
ISSN 1073-6700 print/ISSN 1746-1766 online/06/010035-22
– 2006 The Monterey Institute of International Studies, Center for Nonproliferation Studies
DOI: 10.1080/10736700600861350
micro-satellites; miniature propulsion units for such satellites; directed-energy power
sources, including laser technology and high-powered microwaves for use on land, sea, air
and space; advanced optical systems for laser weapons applications; miniature kinetic kill
vehicles for use against ballistic missiles and possibly against satellites; reusable spacecraft
and space planes; and other similar programs.4
This analysis is restricted to the unclassified budget. Much of DoD spending on
space is classified, inaccessible even to most members of Congress who are not cleared for
access. Nonetheless, an unclassified analysis can reveal a considerable amount about
Defense Department activities in space. First, few programs are completely classified. For
example, although funding and details regarding the Microsatellite Propulsion Experiment
(MPX) are classified, the existence of an ‘‘industry day’’ for the program is common
knowledge.5 Such a gray area allows many details of such programs to appear in the press,
particularly trade publications. Second, the classified budget is better at hiding programs
under development than those that have been launched into space. Once in orbit, even
‘‘stealth’’ satellites are visible to visual observers, who can draw conclusions about size and
purpose of satellites based on orbital data. Therefore, it can be said with confidence that
the United States does not currently deploy space control or force projection platforms in
space. Third, unclassified space programs provide general information about the state of
technological development. For example, unclassified efforts by the National Aeronautics
and Space Administration (NASA), DARPA, and the Air Force to develop autonomous
microsatellites suggest this technology remains in its infancy. Still, the possibility cannot
be excluded that additional, classified research for space weapons technology develop-
ment exists.
While both space control and space force application first appeared in the Reagan
administration’s 1988 National Space Policy (NSP) and were reiterated in the most recent
NSP signed by President Bill Clinton in 1996, neither mission area has enjoyed the political
and budgetary support to become a central tenet of de facto U.S. military space policy.6
Indeed, the Air Force understood the Clinton-era NSP to prohibit an overt space war Á
fighting strategy. ‘‘There was a while in the 1990s when we couldn’t say ‘space control’ *
we couldn’t talk about it,’’ as General Ralph E. Eberhart, then-commander of the U.S. Space
Command and U.S. Air Force Space Command, was quoted in May 2002 by Jane’s
International Defence Review. 7 The (now defunct) U.S. Space Command’s 1998 Long Range
Plan articulated a ‘‘need to develop national policies supporting space warfare, weapons
development and employment, and rules of engagement’’ and ‘‘advocate national policy
and legislation to support negation.’’8 Space-based weapons for hitting terrestrial targets
were out of the question: ‘‘At present, the notion of weapons in space is not consistent
with national policy.’’9
That may be about to change, with the Bush administration’s long-expected rewrite
of the NSP. Proponents hope the National Security Council and White House will use the
NSP, either explicitly in the document’s language or implicitly via increased budgetary
support, as support for these ideas. At the moment, however, a detailed review of the
current Pentagon budget (for fiscal years 2006 Á2009) shows little evidence of a coherent
spending plan to implement the articulated space war Áfighting strategy.
Perhaps not wanting to get out too far in advance of national policy, or perhaps
because the subject of space weapons remains politically controversial, the Air Force has
been coy about the requirements of a ‘‘space dominance’’ strategy and downright mum
about how much it will cost to fight ‘‘in, from and through space.’’10 This reticence
regarding requirements and budgets is opposed to the vigor with which senior Air Force
officials have been proselytizing the need to pursue space superiority and space control
aggressively. Separating the rhetoric from today’s reality takes a bit of detective work:
combing through both Air Force weapons systems planning documents and the
Pentagon’s recent budget documentation.
The latter, in particular, is no small task. First, the DoD does not have a formal space
budget. Although the Air Force is the lead agency for space, actual spending is sprinkled
throughout Pentagon agencies (including MDA and DARPA), the military services, and the
classified National Reconnaissance Office. (Some small amounts of funding for dual-use
military-civilian technologies can also be found in the NASA budget.) The Pentagon
created a ‘‘virtual’’ Major Force Program (vMFP) to help itself track space spending, but this
accounting device does not include basic research or funds appropriated for MDA or
DARPA. Second, research for a single, space-related technology may be funded from
multiple budget accounts. While major programs in near-term development (such as the
troubled Transformational Satellite or TSAT) have their own budget lines, most research
and development money is found in obscurely titled ‘‘grab bags,’’ such as ‘‘Multi-
Disciplinary Advanced Development Space Technology.’’ There is no Air Force budget line
item with an obvious title like ‘‘The Death Star.’’ Third, many technologies that enable the
development of space weapon systems could also be used for benign purposes, such as
inspecting damaged satellites or conducting space surveillance.
It is, however, possible to sketch programmatic activity at the DoD related to space
warfare capabilities. DoD spending on the ‘‘space’’ vMFP has grown by about a billion
dollars a year for the past six years. The DoD requested a total of $22.5 billion in fiscal year
2006 (FY 06) for classified and unclassified space spending, up from $19.8 billion in FY 05
and $14.3 in FY 01.11 In addition, Pentagon budget documents reveal interest in
technologies to enable a space warfare strategy, as this analysis will detail below.
Air Force long-range planning documents do identify near-, mid- and long-term
capabilities that could help fight ‘‘in, from and through space.’’ Matching such wish lists
with actual spending reveals a number of proof-of-technology efforts that may become
full-fledged space weapon programs. Two recent Air Force documents, called ‘‘Transfor-
mation Flight Plans,’’ outline the service’s planned transformation to meet modern warfare
needs, including capabilities for warfighting in space between now and 2030. The
November 2003 version included an annex that named desired weapons programs.12
Air Force officials downplayed the 2003 Transformation Flight Plan as a ‘‘wish list,’’
but the 2004 version describes the series as a ‘‘reporting’’ document that does ‘‘not
represent new policy guidance or propose what the Air Force should do, but is instead
intended to reflect decisions, information, and initiatives already made and/or approved
[emphasis added] by the Air Force capability-based planning, programming and budget-
ing process.’’13
Space Control
As noted above, space control is defined by the Joint Chiefs as operations to provide
‘‘freedom of action in space for friendly forces while, when directed, denying it to an
adversary,’’ including ‘‘the broad aspect of protection of U.S. and allied space systems and
negation of enemy adversary space systems’’ through ‘‘offensive and defensive opera-
tions.’’14 Air Force officials have expressed a preference for temporary, reversible measures
to interfere with satellites.15 One example of such temporary and reversible means is the
Counter Satellite Communications System (Countercom). The 2003 Transformation Flight
Plan slated the Countercom as a near-term requirement.16 Countercom is a mobile,
ground-based satellite-jamming system designed to disrupt radio-frequency links between
satellites and their ground systems, although technical details are classified. The first
Countercom unit was delivered to the 76th Space Control Squadron at Colorado Springs in
the fall of 2004, and two more units were slated to be delivered in 2005 (although as of the
end of the year, no additional announcements had been made).17
Despite this stated preference for nondestructive measures, budget documents
reveal that the Pentagon also is working on a trio of technologies that would support
destructive anti-satellite (ASAT) weapons: (1) microsatellites, (2) directed-energy weapons,
and (3) kinetic kill weapons.
The following sections will review planned spending in each of these areas.
Microsatellites Capable of Performing Autonomous Proximity Operations
Microsatellites have a mass of less than 100 kilograms (kg) *an order of magnitude
smaller than most current satellites, which may weigh more than a ton. The Defense
Technology Area Plan (2000) called for ‘‘the development of micro-satellite vehicles with
significant capability,’’ including the ability to ‘‘conduct missions such as diagnostic
inspection of malfunctioning satellites through autonomous guidance, rendezvous, and
even docking techniques’’ *commonly called Autonomous Proximity Operations
NASA, DARPA and the Air Force all have APO programs, with NASA and the Air Force
looking toward microsatellites to perform these missions. Table 1 shows spending on
three programs to explore APOs.
Demonstration of Autonomous Rendezvous Technology (DART): A NASA satellite
launched in 2005. DART attempted to rendezvous with a DoD communications
satellite but collided with the satellite.19 Orbital’s contract for DART was valued at
$47 million.
Experimental Spacecraft System (XSS): A series of Air Force Research Laboratory
satellites designed to demonstrate imaging applications of proximity operations.
The first satellite, the XSS-10, was launched in 2003. That satellite maneuvered to
Microsatellite Research and Development (Millions of dollars)
Program 2004 2005
Advanced 105.6 89.8 60.9 67.2 78.7 84.1 92.4 94.1
Integrated Space
Space Programs
and Technology
Orbital Express
Spacecraft for
the Unmanned
Modification of
Earth Orbit
(Spiral 1)
32.5 26.8 19.0 18.9 25.6 28.3 30.1 30.7
30.2 23.4 22.0 26.3 29.1 32.3 35.5 36.1
222.9 223.8 264.3 309.3 327.4 348.7 350.7
44.4 46.6 38.8 15.6 911.4 526.0 1120.1 1579.5 1523.7 1990.9 2452.2
For an explanation of how to read this table, see Appendix 2.
within 35 meters of an expended Delta II rocket body, transmitting digital images to
Earth, and conducted other on-orbit maneuvers for 24 hours before completing its
mission.20 The second satellite in the series, the XSS-11, was launched in 2005. The
XSS-11 will remain in orbit for a year and conduct close-proximity operations to
multiple targets of opportunity. Total spending on XSS-11 over FY 01 Á06 was set at
approximately $73 million (about twice the original estimate). The Air Force,
according to a source with access to service plans, hopes the XSS program will lead
to a low-cost design that can be mass-produced.
Orbital Express: A DARPA program to demonstrate the feasibility of using automated
spacecraft to refuel, upgrade, and extend the life of on-orbit spacecraft.21 Boeing is
building two satellites *the 700-kg Autonomous Space Transport Robotic Opera-
tions satellite (ASTRO) and a surrogate next-generation serviceable satellite
(NEXTSat) *for an on-orbit demonstration of autonomous satellite servicing set
for launch in March 2006.22 DARPA is spending $56.6 million in FY 05 on its Orbital
Express program. Boeing’s contract for ASTRO is valued at $113 million.
Although none of these satellites is a dedicated anti-satellite, each contributes to
such a future capability. As the head of the Air Force XSS program told the newsletter
Inside the Pentagon, ‘‘You can’t closely inspect a vehicle *say, one with an on-orbit
malfunction *without getting’close’ and approaching from the right angle. To refuel,
obviously you’d have to get more than close, and ‘dock’ with the vehicle.’’23
The XSS program demonstrates the wide variety of defense applications for
microsatellite technology. XSS is the successor of the Clementine 2 Asteroid Intercept
Demonstrator developed by NASA and the then Ballistic Missile Defense Organization
(BMDO). Clinton used his line-item veto to eliminate a congressional appropriation for
Clementine 2 because he determined that the research ‘‘more logically . . . fit within the
space-based missile defense mission area’’ and was unnecessary because the U.S. missile
defense deployment option at the time did ‘‘not include space-based weapons in its
architecture.’’24 In 2000, the Air Force recast the program as a satellite inspector, and it was
subsequently funded. The principal use of the XSS technology may be as an anti-satellite
weapon. The ‘‘XSS-11 can be used as an ASAT weapon,’’ one Air Force official told Inside
the Pentagon .25 Moreover, the ‘‘single strongest recommendation’’ of an informal 1999
Micro-satellite Technology and Requirements Study prepared for Air Force Space Command
was ‘‘the deployment, as rapidly as possible, of XSS-10-based satellites to intercept, image
and, if needed, take action against a target satellite’’ based on technology from the Army’s
kinetic energy (KE) ASAT program (see below).26
The three programs highlighted above were also considered for an innocuous
‘‘anti-satellite’’ mission of sorts: There was talk at NASA in 2005 about launching an
autonomous ‘‘space tug’’ in 2006, using technology from DART, XSS, and ASTRO, to de-
orbit the Hubble Space Telescope (although the agency recently shifted course for the
near term to focus on repair). ‘‘We actually think that having three programs that are
funded right now to look at aspects of this issue are really going to be a great help,’’ noted
one NASA official.27
DARPA is also pursuing another program worth noting: Satellite for the Unmanned
Modification of Orbits (SUMO). SUMO will integrate cameras and new robotic arms to
‘‘grapple space objects without custom interfaces’’ for ‘‘spacecraft salvage, repair, rescue,
reposition, and debris removal, to extend service life or provide a safe and calculated
Directed-Energy Anti-Satellite Research
The Air Force is putting increased emphasis on research into directed energy for
both offensive and defensive purposes. Colonel Gail Wojtowicz, chief of the Air
Force future concepts and transformation directorate, told an October 11, 2005,
conference sponsored by the American Enterprise Institute: ‘‘Directed energy is the next
weapons race,’’ stressing the service’s ‘‘big push’’ to pursue such technologies.29
Furthermore, the 2003 Transformation Flight Plan notes a ‘‘recently completed
Directed Energy Master Plan’’ that ‘‘articulates a strategy to develop and transition
directed energy applications such as . . . space superiority and ballistic missile defense.’’30
The Transformation Flight Plan outlines directed-energy technologies to attack satellites,
including ground- and space-based lasers, relay mirrors, and radio-frequency weapons.
Table 2 details identifiable spending in the current budget plan by the Air Force and the
Two facilities are used to work on ground-based lasers: the Air Force Research
Laboratory’s (AFRL) Directed Energy Directorate, which operates the Starfire Optical Range
at Kirtland Air Force Base, and DoD High Energy Laser Test Facility, which houses the Mid-
Infrared Advanced Chemical Laser (MIRACL).
The Air Force Research Laboratory’s Directed Energy Directorate appears to
conduct antisatellite-related research using a facility at Kirtland Air Force Base in
Directed-Energy Research and Development (Millions of dollars)
R1 PE Program 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
12 0602605F 40.8 43.6 37.7 42.6 41.3 40.8 41.6 41.9
15 0602890F 40.5 50.2 45.7 49.6 50.0 54.2 55.4 56.4
35 0603924F 10.5 9.8 5.8 3.7 3.7 4.0 4.1 4.2
139 0605605A 18.2 15.1 17.7 18.4 19.1 19.2 19.7 20.2
9 0602500F Directed-Energy 99.2 95.4 81.3 102.4 120.4 120.2 119.0 120.7
           High-Energy Laser
           High-Energy Laser
           Advanced Technology
           DoD High-Energy Laser
           Test Facility
           Multidisciplinary Space
           Laser and Imaging Space
           Advanced Development
           Space Technology
           Advanced Optics and
           Laser Space Technology
           High-Energy Laser
           Research Initiatives
           Advanced Weapons
5.6 8.5 8.2 10.3 11.5 11.9 12.1 12.2
58.2 56.9 53.4 68.6 69.5 72.5 77.9 82.8
18.1 19.0 20.9 21.2 22.2 22.0 28.2 28.7
11.6 12.2 11.9 12.3 12.3 13.4 13.7 13.9
59.5 56.9 27.0 29.5 28.2 30.5 31.1 31.6
3 0601108F
30 0603605F
For an explanation of how to read this table, see Appendix 2.
Albuquerque, New Mexico. The Starfire Optical Range (SOR) comprises two large
telescopes that use adaptive optics to compensate for atmospheric effects when
tracking satellites and debris, as well as a beam director that is used ‘‘primarily
for projecting laser beams at space objects.’’31 Currently, the AFRL Directed
Energy Directorate plans to use the SOR to ‘‘perform atmospheric compensation/
beam control experiments for applications including anti-satellite weapons,’’
including tests in 2007 to ‘‘demonstrate fully compensated laser propagation to
LEO [low-Earth-orbit] satellites.’’32 The Air Force also plans to collect ‘‘empirical data’’
to update current lethality assessments and other programs to improve beam
control, which may be carried out at Kirtland.33 Table 3 details Air Force spending
plans for the SOR on technology development and testing that could enable
directed-energy ASATs.
The Mid-Infrared Advanced Chemical Laser is a high-energy megawatt-class laser
managed by the Army and based at the DoD’s High Energy Laser Test Facility on the
White Sands Missile Range in New Mexico.34 In 1996, the Army tested the MIRACL
against a U.S. satellite to test the effect of the laser on satellite optics.35 Its current
status is unclear.
To extend the range of ground-based lasers, the 2003 Transformation Flight Plan proposes
an Evolutionary Air and Space (or Aerospace) Global Laser Engagement (EAGLE) concept
using ‘‘airborne, terrestrial or space-based lasers in conjunction with space-based relay
mirrors . . . to achieve a broad range of effects from illumination to destruction.’’36 AFRL is
Starfire Optical Range Experiments Related to ASATs
Major Perform atmospheric compensation/beam control experiments for US$M
Thrust applications, including anti-satellite weapons, relay mirror systems,
       satellite tests and diagnostics, and high-resolution satellite imaging.
FY 2004 Completed integration and began testing of sodium-beacon laser on 3.9
        Starfire Optical Range (SOR) 3.5-meter telescope; this enabled full
        aperture point-ahead atmospheric compensation for low-power laser
        projection to satellites on weapons-class beam director.
        Completed integration and began testing of sodium-beacon adaptive
        optics system, including compensated infrared imaging of low-Earth-
        orbit (LEO) satellites.
        Begin testing of advanced laser-beacon adaptive optics system on SOR
        3.5-meter telescope to increase imaging resolution/laser beam
        control; perform high-resolution satellite imaging at short
        wavelengths; demonstrate and characterize performance of
        point-ahead compensated laser propagation to LEO satellites using
        sodium-beacon adaptive optics.
        Demonstrate fully compensated laser propagation to LEO satellites;
        measure beam profile and intensity on target; begin development of
        precision aimpoint stabilization through turbulence.
FY 2005
FY 2006
FY 2007
conducting research in support of the EAGLE concept.37 For FY 04, Congress appropriated
additional funds to support laboratory tests that would lead to a high-altitude relay mirror
test.38 In response, as FY 06 budget documents indicate, the Air Force has placed ‘‘greater
emphasis on relay mirrors,’’ including making plans for ‘‘a high-power demonstration to
kill a missile through a relay mirror.’’39
In contrast to ground-based lasers and relay mirrors, the Pentagon has placed less
emphasis on space-based directed-energy programs. The Missile Defense Agency has
dropped plans to develop a Space-Based Laser (SBL), closing the SBL program office and
canceling an FY 12 integrated flight experiment (IFX). Budget documents indicate that the
DoD continues basic research on high-energy lasers that can operate in a gravity-free
environment.40 The 2003 Transformation Flight Plan indicates Air Force interest in a
‘‘constellation of satellites containing high-power radio-frequency transmitters’’ called the
Space-Based Radio Frequency Energy Weapon that ‘‘would typically be used as a non-
kinetic anti-satellite weapon.’’41 However, we were unable to determine from the
unclassified budget whether this program is being supported by basic research.
Kinetic Energy Anti-Satellite /Army Counterspace Technology Testbed
The status of the KE ASAT program is unclear. The Pentagon has not requested funds for
this program since the early 1990s, but congressional patrons periodically include money
for the KE ASAT *now called the Army Counterspace Technology Testbed *in annual
appropriations bills.
The KE ASAT comprises a kill vehicle and a booster *similar to a missile-defense
interceptor *that would destroy a satellite either by colliding with the satellite or striking it
with a large, Mylar membrane (often called a ‘‘fly swatter’’) that contains an array of ‘‘high
density pellets’’ to ‘‘provide penetration, crushing of the target structure, and removal of
critical appendages.’’42 Despite claims that KE ASAT is designed to mitigate debris, a 1992
study by scientists at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory concluded KE ASAT would
generate debris.43 The prospect of a giant ‘‘fly swatter’’ creating a large amount of orbital
debris has undermined support for the program. The Clinton administration canceled the
program in 1993. The Pentagon has not requested funding for the program, citing debris
issues. In 2001, then-Commander of U.S. Space Command General Ralph Eberhart testified
that the KE ASAT would create too much debris to be used against satellites.44
Despite official disinterest, Congress has sporadically funded the program in recent
years. The Government Accountability Office (GAO), in a December 2000 report, found that
the program remains ‘‘in a state of disarray’’ due, in part, to the program’s uncertain
funding.45 Table 4 shows congressional appropriations for the program since 1996.
In FY 2004 and FY 2005, Congress added $7.5 million under MDA Ballistic Missile
Defense Technology in FY 2004 and $14 million in FY 2005 under MDA Ballistic Missile
Defense Products for the program. Two Alabama-based companies, Davidson Technolo-
gies and Miltec, received contracts to support KE ASAT development using these funds.
Davidson Technologies received contracts in 2001 and 2003.46 In May 2004, Army Space
and Missile Defense Command (SMDC) awarded Miltec a $4 million increment to a $12.4
million contract for the Army counterspace technology testbed. 47
The Army renamed the program the Army Counter Space Technology Testbed (or
Applied Counterspace Technology), shifting some of the money from work on KE ASAT
appropriated by Congress to research on command-and-control systems for the Rapid
Attack Identification Detection and Reporting System (RAIDRS). Yet, the Army also
continues development of the KE ASAT kill vehicle, identified in the Army Space Master
Plan as one of many ‘‘future operational capabilities for space control.’’48 SMDC has issued
Congressional Appropriations for KE ASAT (Millions of dollars)
84 0603892D
82 0603872C
30 0603175C
73 0603889C
Joint Theater
Missile Defense-
MDA Ballistic
Missile Defense
MDA Ballistic
Missile Defense
1996 1997
For an explanation of how to read this table, see Appendix 2.
a statement-of-work contract that requires the contractor to support flight tests ‘‘as
needed.’’49 Program officers believe they could conduct an on-orbit demonstration for
about $60 million (an amount that would cover two flight-test vehicles and one spare).50
The 2003 Transformation Flight Plan also describes Air Force interest in ‘‘a small air-
launched missile capable of intercepting satellites in Low Earth Orbit,’’ dubbed the Air
Launched Anti-Satellite Missile. The concept seems similar to the miniature homing vehicle
that the United States test-fired from an F-15 fighter in the mid-1980s, destroying a U.S.
satellite in low Earth orbit.51 Whether there is direct funding for such a program is unclear,
although the ongoing work by MDA on miniature kill vehicles could have applicability to
an air-launched ASAT capability.
Space Force Application
‘‘Space force application operations (also sometimes termed Global Strike operations)
consist of attacks against terrestrial-based targets carried out by military weapons systems
operating in or through space.’’52 These capabilities are largely driven by the Nuclear
Posture Review , which anticipated modernizing U.S. strategic forces through the addition
of missile defenses and conventional strike capabilities. Space-based missile defenses,
previously categorized as space control programs, are now considered ‘‘space force
application’’ systems in planning documents.
Space-Based Missile Defenses
The United States is committed to improving the initial capabilities of the Ballistic Missile
Defense System (BMDS) through additional measures that may include the ‘‘development
and testing of space-based defenses, specifically space-based kinetic energy (hit-to-kill)
interceptors and advanced target tracking satellites.’’53 Air Force Lieutenant General Trey
Obering, director of MDA, told the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics 3rd
Annual U.S. Missile Defense Conference, "Emerging threats and uncertainty would really
have us take a hard look at developing a space-based layer that we could add to the
system.’’54 Proponents for Space-Based Test Bed point to the ‘‘Brilliant Pebbles’’ concept
developed by the Lawrence Livermore Laboratory and Ball Aerospace during the 1980s as
the source of technology for a new program.55 Table 5 details identifiable MDA funding for
planned technology development and testing related to space-based missile defenses.
In FY 2003, MDA consolidated funding for space-, land- and sea-based boost efforts
into a single program: Ballistic Missile Defense System Interceptors (BMDS Interceptors). In
FY 2005, MDA reduced the emphasis of this program on boost-phase interception in favor
of providing additional opportunities to intercept ballistic missiles during the midcourse of
their flight. Also known as ‘‘kinetic energy interceptors,’’ the budget for BMDS Interceptors
contains two projects related to space-based missile defense interceptors.
Near Field Infra Red Experiment (NFIRE) is a LEO satellite that will collect visible and
infrared imagery of missiles during their boost phase as a ‘‘risk reduction effort’’ for
Space-Based Missile Defense Research & Development (Millions of dollars)
R1 PE Program 2004 2005 2006
74 0603886C BMDS Interceptor 114.7 279.8 229.7 444.9
            Near Field Infrared Experiment 44.5 68.0 13.7
            Space-Based Interceptors Test 10.5 10.8
            Bed 0.0
            BMD (Ballistic Missile Defense) 0.0
            Midcourse Defense Segment
            Multiple Kill Vehicles
1137.3 1468.8 1717.5
3711.7 4501.5 3266.2 198.4 3946.0 3650.8 3315.5 3183.6
For an explanation of how to read this table, see Appendix 2.
‘‘future space-based boost phase interceptors.’’56 MDA plans to launch NFIRE in June
2006. Once in orbit, MDA will launch two ballistic missiles toward the NFIRE satellite
as part of ‘‘fly-by’’ tests to allow the satellite to view ballistic missiles in flight. MDA
voluntarily shelved plans to include what it termed a ‘‘kill vehicle’’ that NFIRE would
fire at one of the target missiles. In August 2005, it was revealed that MDA planned
to replace the kill vehicle with a German laser communications terminal.57 However,
in September 2005, the Senate Appropriations Committee included language in its
report accompanying the FY 2006 defense bill that called on MDA to include the kill
vehicle in the NFIRE satellite. The final fate of the kill vehicle is still unknown,58
although MDA officials recently stated that a planned 2006 test would not include it.
MDA will begin a one-year concept design phase for the Space Test Bed in FY 2008.
After a contractor is selected, MDA plans to conduct ‘‘multiple space-based intercept
tests’’59 with five space-based interceptors against medium- to intercontinental-
range ballistic missiles through FY 2015. In FY 2016, MDA plans to enter production
for a ‘‘limited constellation of space-based interceptors (50 Á100 satellites)’’ that
‘‘offers thin boost/ascent defense against intercontinental ballistic missiles.’’ 60
MDA also conducts risk-reduction work for space-based interceptors under the Multiple
Kill Vehicle (MKV) project. The MKV concept envisions using several small kill vehicles
within a single interceptor missile to destroy multiple targets such as decoys. Previously
funded as an advanced technology effort, MKV is now broken out in a separate project in
the FY 2006 budget.61 As noted above, MDA cancelled its dedicated program to develop a
Space-Based Laser because of technology hurdles and cost concerns *although MDA
continues to express interest in directed-energy systems.
Funding for Common Aero Vehicle (Millions of dollars)
60 0604855F
61 0604856F
33 0603287E
Operationally Responsive Launch
Common Aero Vehicle
Space Programs and Technology
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
21.5 33.1 23.5 35.5 41.3 74.9 76.3 77.4
17.0 16.5 27.4 32.5 31.7 39.8 92.7 94.1
     222.9 223.8 264.3 309.3 327.4 348.7 350.7
     12.5 25.0
For an explanation of how to read this table, see Appendix 2.
Common Aero Vehicle Program of Work
Initiation of CAV system
definition, systems
engineering, and flight-test
planning for Phase I
CAV system design and de-
velopment, systems
engineering, and flight-test
planning/support for
Phase II
New in 2006 PBR:
Initiation of HTV
(Hypersonic Technology
Vehicle) systems
engineering and flight-test
planning/support for
Phase III
Support of early
demonstration flights
Analysis and assessment of
alternative CAV concepts/
requirements and program
management support
New in 2006 PBR: Perform
prompt global strike
analysis of alternatives
Prepare hypersonics test
Develop critical CAV
Total cost
FY 2005 PBR (President’s
Budget Request)
FY 03
FY 04
FY 05
FY 04
FY 05
FY 2006 PBR (President’s
Budget Request)
FY 05
FY 06
FY 07
10.910 ' 0.554
3.000 7.700
4.232 3.000 ' 2.000
Á 7.7
4.247 5.726
27.394 32.529
Space-Based Strike
Consistent with the Pentagon’s Nuclear Posture Review’s emphasis on developing
conventional strike options, the Air Force Space Command promulgated a Prompt Global
Strike (PGS) Mission Needs Statement (MNS) that established a requirement for ‘‘rapid
conventional strike worldwide to counter the proliferation of weapons of mass
destruction.’’62 The 2003 Air Force Transformation Flight Plan lists a series of capabilities
required to attack targets rapidly and precisely anywhere on the globe in 90 minutes or
less. Three of these capabilities *the Common Aero Vehicle, Space Maneuver Vehicle, and
Space Operations Vehicle *reflect long-standing Air Force interest in a military ‘‘space
plane.’’63 Brigadier General Simon ‘‘Pete’’ Worden explains:
The basic space-access system would consist of a reusable suborbital space operations
vehicle (SOV) that would operate solely within the United States. It could carry a reusable
orbital ‘‘mini-space plane’’ or space maneuver vehicle (SMV) capable of carrying a
payload into low Earth orbit. It could also carry an expendable upper stage or ‘‘modular
insertion stage’’ (MIS), for access to higher orbits. Finally, it could carry weapons capable
of being delivered over intercontinental ranges. The weapon’s carrier is called a
‘‘common aero vehicle’’ (CAV).64
Work on such a ‘‘space plane’’ is currently carried out by DARPA and the Air Force on a
joint program called Project FALCON *Force Application Launch from CONUS.65 A fourth
capability *bundles of tungsten rods that would use kinetic energy to destroy targets on
Earth *appears to exist largely as a concept that guides more general research.66
The CAV *a ‘‘hypersonic glide vehicle’’ that will ‘‘dispense conventional weapons,
sensors or other payloads worldwide from and through space within one hour of
tasking’’ *is the centerpiece of conventional strike efforts.67 In December 2002, then-
Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz directed the Air Force and DARPA to establish
a joint program office to accelerate the CAV to meet the PGS requirement.68 The result was
a joint Air Force-DARPA program called FALCON that comprises three systems: CAV, SLV,
and a hypersonic cruise vehicle (HCV) to deliver ‘‘conventional payloads worldwide from
and through space.’’69 Options reviewed for carrying the CAV included a reusable ‘‘space
plane,’’ an on-orbit platform (currently considered too expensive and technologically
challenging), and, in the near term, a ballistic missile. The program soon ran afoul of
congressional appropriators, who expressed concern that Russia and China might
misinterpret the launch of a CAV-carrying ballistic missile as a nuclear attack. The FY 05
appropriations bill restricted use of the funds to ‘‘non-weapons related research, such as
microsatellite or other satellite launch requirements and other purposes as listed under
the conferees recommendations.’’70 As a result, DARPA and the Air Force renamed CAV the
Hypersonic Technology Vehicle and stopped ‘‘all weaponization activities.’’71 This
restructuring, however, resulted in only modest changes to the unclassified work
program *principally the cancellation of plans for a CAV/penetrator demonstration flight.
Moreover, Pentagon officials have continued to express support for using CAV to create a
squadron of conventionally armed ballistic missiles.72 Press reports suggest the Pentagon’s
2005 Quadrennial Defense Review will recommend moving 50 Minuteman III ICBMs to
Vandenberg Air Force Base for this mission.73
Concepts for hypervelocity rod bundles *nicknamed ‘‘Rods from God’’ *have
existed since at least the 1980s under different names, such as ‘‘Long Rod Penetrators.’’
Generally, the concept involves a constellation of satellites, each housing several tungsten
rods. Up to 20 feet long and about a foot in diameter, these rods would launch from space
at extremely high speeds, striking underground targets with the force of a small nuclear
weapon.74 However, studies of this concept have shown that although Rods from God are
theoretically possible, there are both physics and engineering challenges that may simply
be impossible to overcome.75 Despite the inclusion of hypervelocity rod bundles in the
2003 Transformation Flight Plan , we do not see any evidence in Air Force budget
documents to suggest research on such a program is being funded.
From analyzing current Pentagon budget documentation, we conclude that, for the
moment, support for ‘‘space superiority’’ and ‘‘space control’’ systems remains largely
rhetorical *with little actual budgetary support. The Bush administration has expressed
interest in these new military missions in outer space. That interest has been reflected in
statements by Pentagon officials about space dominance, as well as official military
documents, especially those emanating from the Air Force. However, this interest has not
yet been reflected in budget requests. Unclassified technology development programs
included in the six-year Future Years Defense Plan are a decade or more away from
deployment. Programs related to offensive counterspace, space-based missile defense
interceptors, and space-based strike total slightly less than $300 million in FY 2006
funding. Based on current levels of technological development and anticipated levels of
budgetary support, we conclude significantly higher expenditures in research and
development would be required to develop and deploy killer microsatellites, space-based
missile defense interceptors, and military space planes. The Pentagon is not *at least in
the unclassified budget *actively developing capabilities, such as new ground- or air-
launched ASATs, that might be seen in a relatively short time.
In our view, this situation is unlikely to change in the near term. A space war Á
fighting strategy faces a serious budgetary constraint *compounded by the overall
pressures on the DoD budget that have emerged over the last year *that we believe will
leave new military missions perennially vulnerable in the annual appropriations process to
a variety of political and technical objections. Furthermore, ASATs, space-based missile
defenses, and space-based strike weapons cannot be deployed without the completion of
a very capable supporting infrastructure to provide command, control, and intelligence
(C2I) functions. Yet, current programs to ‘‘recapitalize’’ current U.S. space and C2I
capabilities are experiencing dramatic delays and cost overruns that threaten to consume
the entire military space budget, leaving little money for new military missions in space.
‘‘Virtually every major space acquisition program,’’ the House Armed Services
Committee (HASC) has observed, ‘‘has experienced or sits dangerously close to a Nunn-
McCurdy breach’’ *a dramatic cost-growth requiring extraordinary intervention to save
the program from cancellation.76
The Congressional Budget Office estimates that current space acquisition efforts will
cost between $10 billion and $14 billion a year by 2010.77 Congressional appropriators
have stated clearly that the Pentagon must reduce its request for space systems. In the
2006 Defense Appropriations bill, Congress slashed funding for two of the Air Force’s
‘transformational’ space acquisition efforts *Space Radar and the Transformational
Satellite System *to emphasize this point. Congressional concerns have also led to the
restructuring of a pair of classified spy satellite programs.78 Senator Wayne Allard,
Republican-Colorado, a long-time supporter of military space programs, expressed the
frustration of many members of Congress: ‘‘I strongly believe the continued mismanage-
ment of our space acquisition programs is a far greater threat to our space dominance
than any external danger.’’79
U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, Joint Doctrine for Space Operations: Joint Publication 3 Á14, Aug.
9, 2002.
Final Report of the Commission to Assess United States National Security Space Manage-
ment and Organization (hereinafter Rumsfeld Commission report), Jan. 11, 2001, p. 87,
U.S. Air Force, Counterspace Operations: Air Force Doctrine Document 2 Á2.1, Aug. 2, 2004,
p. 1.
See interview of Dr. Richard L. Garwin in Azimuth Media, Arming the Heavens: The Push for
Space Weapons (documentary film) (Washington DC: Azimuth Media, 2004).
Air Force Material Command, ‘‘Microsatellite Propulsion Experiment Industry Day,’’
SpaceRef.com website, Bwww.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid 013807!.
This is not to say that the U.S. military in the past has not pursued specific anti-satellite
weapon programs * indeed, the Air Force in the 1980s successfully tested an F-15
fighter-launched missile equipped with a miniature homing vehicle against a satellite.
Nonetheless, none of these development programs made it to fruition, in part due to
political skepticism as well as cost and technical hurdles.
Bill Sweetman, ‘‘USAF Plots Return to Space,’’ Jane’s International Defence Review , May
2002, p. 45.
U.S. Space Command, Long Range Plan: Implementing USSPACECOM Vision for 2020 (CO:
Peterson AFB, 1998), Chapter 5, pp. 10 Á 11.
Ibid., Chapter 6, p. 2.
Air Force Space Command, Strategic Master Plan: FY 04 and Beyond , November 5, 2002,
p. 3.
‘‘DoD Seeks 13.6% Bump for Space in 2006 Budget,’’ Space News , April 4, 2005, p. 3;
‘‘Dave Weldon Speaks about Space Policy,’’ Space Review , May 20, 2003, p. 1.
The U.S. Air Force Transformation Flight Plan 2003 , Annex D.
The U.S. Air Force Transformation Flight Plan, 2004, Executive Summary, p. i.
Joint Doctrine for Space Operations, p. x.
Counterspace Operations: AFDD 2 Á2.1. While the Air Force doctrine on counterspace fails
to discuss a preference for less than lethal means, the Joint Doctrine for Space Operations ,
which in theory ‘‘outranks’’ the Air Force document, does note such a preference.
The U.S. Air Force Transformation Flight Plan 2003, p. 62.
Ann Imse, ‘‘U.S. deploys weapon to attack satellites,’’ Rocky Mountain News , Oct. 2, 2004;
Jeffrey Lewis, ‘‘Counter Satellite Communications System Deployed,’’ Arms Control
Wonk.com website, Bwww.armscontrolwonk.com!. According to our definition, this
would not be considered a space weapon, notwithstanding Air Force pronouncements,
since it is a ground-based jammer. Nonetheless, it is significant that the Air Force
considers it a counterspace weapon.
Defense Technology Area Plan , U.S. Dept. of Defense, 2000, VIII-14.
Jonathan McDowell, Jonathan’s Space Report , No. 547, May 8, 2005, Bhttp://host.planet
Thomas M. Davis, Tammy L. Baker, Timothy A. Belchak, and William R. Larsen, ‘‘XSS-10
Micro-Satellite Flight Demonstration Program,’’ SSC03-1-IV-1, 17th Annual AIAA/USU
Conference on Small Satellites , Logan, Utah, Aug. 2003.
Gerry Gottselig, ‘‘Orbital Express Advanced Technology Demonstration,’’ Presentation to
2002 Core Technologies for Space Systems Conference , Colorado Springs, USA, Nov. 19 Á 21,
Boeing Co., Press Release, March 15, 2002, ‘‘Boeing Team Selected to Build Orbital Express
Advanced Technology Demonstration System.’’
Elaine M. Grossman and Keith J. Costa, ‘‘Small, Experimental Satellite May Offer More
Than Meets The Eye,’’ Inside The Pentagon , Dec. 4, 2003.
White House Office of the Press Secretary, Press Release, Oct. 14, 1997, ‘‘Press Briefing:
OMB Director Frank Raines, NSC Senior Director for Defense Policy and Arms Control Bob
Bell and Deputy Defense Secretary John Hamre on the Line-Item Veto,’’ Bwww.clinton
Grossman and Costa, ‘‘Small, Experimental Satellite May Offer More Than Meets The Eye.’’
Matt Bille, Robyn Kane, and Mel Nowlin, Military Microsatellites: Matching Requirements
and Technology , American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA) document
AIAA-2000-5186, Sept. 19 Á 21, 2000, p. 9.
Brian Berger, ‘‘NASA Proposes $300 Million Tug to Deorbit Hubble,’’ Space News , Nov. 24,
2003. At the time of writing, the 2007 NASA budget reverts to the old plan to service the
Hubble using a manned mission in 2008 * what remains of the autonomous plans
remains unclear * although at some point, Hubble will have to be de-orbited.
Dept. of Defense Fiscal Year (FY) 2006/FY 2007 Budget Estimates, Research, Develop-
ment, Test, and Evaluation, Defense-Wide, Volume 1, Defense Advanced Research
Projects Agency (DARPA), Feb. 2005, p. 282.
Col. Gail Wastowicz, comments delivered at the American Enterprise Institute conference,
‘‘The Future of the U.S. Air Force, ’’ Washington DC, October 11, 2005.
U.S. Air Force Transformation Flight Plan 2003 , p. 65. The Directed Energy Master Plan is
currently classified for official use only.
Air Force Research Laboratory, ‘‘Starfire Optical Range Facilities * Auxiliary Beam
Director,’’ Starfire Optical Range website, Bwww.de.afrl.af.mil/SOR/ABD.htm!.
Dept. of the Air Force, Fiscal Year (FY) 2006/2007 Budget Estimates, Research,
Development, Test And Evaluation (RDT & E), Descriptive Summaries, Vol. 1, Budget
Activities 1 Á 3 Feb.
SOR is funded out of at least two program elements: PE 0602500F Multi-disciplinary
Space Technology. We are currently uncertain where funds for the beam control
experiments in PE 0602890F High Energy Laser Research are conducted.
The DoD High Energy Laser Test Facility is funded out of the Army Budget as Program
Element 0605605A. See Dept. of the Army, Office of the Secretary of the Army (Financial
Management and Comptroller), Supporting Data FY 2006/2007 President’s Budget,
Descriptive Summaries of the Research, Development, Test And Evaluation , Army
Appropriation, Budget Activities 6 and 7, Vol. III, Feb. 2005, p. 52.
John Donnelly, ‘‘Laser of 30 Watts Blinded Satellite 300 Miles High,’’ Defense Week , Dec. 8,
1997, p. 1.
U.S. Air Force Transformation Flight Plan 2003, p. 65 and Annex D. EAGLE appears to be
under consideration for use against a variety of targets, from ballistic missiles and other
terrestrial targets to satellites.
Research related to EAGLE appears to be carried out under Program Elements ‘‘0602500F
Multi-disciplinary Space’’ and ‘‘0603500F Multi-disciplinary Advanced Development
Space Technology.’’ See Dept. of the Air Force, Fiscal Year (FY) 2006/2007 Budget
Estimates, Research, Development, Test And Evaluation (RDT&E), Descriptive Summaries ,
Vol. I, Scientific And Technology Budget Activities 1 Á 3, Feb. 2005, pp. 217 Á 219 and pp.
491 Á 493. For more information about EAGLE, see ‘‘The Magic of Relay Mirrors,’’ AFRL
Horizons , Oct. 2004, Bwww.afrlhorizons.com/Briefs/Oct04/DE0304.html!.
The funds were added to Program Element 0603605F Advanced Weapons Technology.
Dept. of the Air Force, Fiscal Year (FY) 2006/2007 Budget Estimates , Vol. I, p. 519.
See Program Element 0603500F MULTI-DISCIPLINARY ADV DEV SPACE TEC as described
in Dept. of the Air Force, Fiscal Year (FY) 2006/2007 Budget Estimates, Vol. I, p. 491.
Some work is carried out in Program Elements ‘‘0602605F Directed Energy Technology’’
and ‘‘0603924F High Energy Laser Advanced Technology Program.’’ See Dept. of the Air
Force, Fiscal Year (FY) 2006/2007 Budget Estimates, Vol. I, p. 491.
U.S. Air Force Transformation Flight Plan 2003, p. 10, Annex D.
Joseph T. Stegmaier and Michael J. Grannan, ‘‘Kinetic Energy Anti-Satellite Weapon
System (KE ASAT WS),’’ AIAA Space Programs and Technology Conference, Huntsville,
Alabama, USA. March 24 Á 27, 1992.
R. Lee, et al., ‘‘Near Term Kinetic Energy Anti-Satellite Weapon System (KE-ASAT WS)
Program,’’ UCRL-ID-110801, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, May 1992.
Kerry Gildea, ‘‘Space Command Chief Questions Value of KE-ASAT,’’ Defense Daily 209
(March 29, 2001); Charles Aldinger, ‘‘General Warns: High-Tech Warfare Could Litter Space
with Debris,’’ Reuters, March 28, 2001, Bwww.space.com/news/spaceagencies/space_
General Accounting Office, KE-ASAT Program Status GAO-01-228R (Dec. 5, 2000),
The 2001 award document and a 2003 modification are available from the Redstone
website, Bwwwproc.redstone.army.mil/acquisition/award_web/edamis/20011001/0100
053.pdf! and Bwwwproc.redstone.army.mil/acquisition/award_web/edamis/20030213/
DoD Contract Announcement , Nos. 503-04, May 25, 2004, Bwww.defenselink.mil/
General Accounting Office, Military Space Operations, GAO-02-73 (Sept. 2002), p. 11,
Bwww.gao.gov/new.items/d02738.pdf!. For more information on the Army Space
Master Plan , which is classified, see Lt. Col. Rob King, ‘‘Army Space Master Plan,’’ Army
Space Journal 3 (Fall 2004), pp. 22 Á 23.
The statement of work is available from the Redstone website, Bwww.smdc.army.mil/
Kerry Gildea, ‘‘Possible Funding Boost In FY ’04 Budget Could Lead To KE-ASAT Flight
Test,’’ Defense Daily 216 (Dec. 17, 2002).
U.S. Air Force Transformation Flight Plan 2003 , p. 62, Annex D.
Joint Doctrine for Space Operations , p. x.
Dept. of Defense, ‘‘Missile Defense Operations Announcement,’’ Dec. 17, 2002, Bwww.
Anne Roosevelt, ‘‘MDA Considers Space Layer for Ballistic Missile Defense,’’ Defense Daily,
April 13, 2005.
See for example Gregory Canavan, ‘‘Estimates of Performance and Cost for Boost Phase
Intercept,’’ talk given at the Marshall Institute, Washington, D.C., Sept. 24, 2004,
Dept. of Defense, Fiscal Year (FY) 2006/FY 2007 Budget Estimates, Research, Development,
Test, and Evaluation, Defense-Wide, Volume 2 Missile Defense Agency, (MDA) , Feb. 2005,
p. 339.
‘‘German Payload to Fly Aboard NFIRE Satellite,’’ Space News, Aug. 22, 2005.
‘‘MDA Declines to Restore Kill Vehicle to NFIRE Mission,’’ Space News , Feb. 13, 2005, p. 2.
Dept. of Defense, Fiscal Year (FY) 2006/FY 2007 Budget Estimates, p. 335.
Multiple Kill Vehicles are funded as part of Program Element 0603882C Ballistic Missile
Defense Midcourse Defense Segment. Ibid., p. 210.
CAV Budget Submission. See also, MNS AFSPC 002-01, Prompt Global Strike (Air Force
Space Command, 2003).
Perhaps the most famous of these was the Dyna-soar program (also know as X-20) of the
late 1950s and 1960s. Envisioned as a one-manned orbital space plane, the program
never made it beyond the initial construction phase. For more information, see Dennis R.
Jenkins, Tony Landis, and Jay Miller, American X-Vehicles, Monographs in Aerospace
History No. 31, NASA History Office, June 2003, Bhttp://history.nasa.gov/monog
raph31.pdf!, and Robert Godwin, ed., Dyna-Soar: Hypersonic Strategic Weapons System
(Burlington, ONT, Canada: Collector’s Guide Publishing, 2003).
Brig. Gen. Simon Peter Worden, ‘‘The Air Force and Future Space Directions: Are We Good
Stewards?’’ Aerospace Power Journal (Spring 2001), Bwww.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/air
chronicles/apj/apj01/spr01/worden.htm!. See also U.S. Air Force Transformation Flight
Plan 2003 , Annex D, p. D-11
Continental United States.
U.S. Air Force Transformation Flight Plan 2003 , p. 65 and Annex D.
U.S. Air Force Transformation Flight Plan 2003 , p. 66 and Annex D. While the
Transformation Flight Plan and initial budget descriptions of CAV cited an option for
on-orbit basing, Pentagon officials in recent months have insisted that internal Air Force
studies have proven that on-orbit basing makes little cost-benefit sense.
Dept. of the Air Force, Fiscal Year (FY) 2006/2007 Budget Estimates, Research, Development,
Test And Evaluation (RDT & E), Descriptive Summaries, Vol. II, Budget Activities 4 Á 6, Feb.
2005, p. 801.
FALCON-Force Application and Launch from CONUS Technology Demonstration PHASE I
DRAFT SOLICITATION 03-XX Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency DARPA/TTO-
DRAFT Rev 1, June 17, 2003.
Making Appropriates For The Department of Defense For The Fiscal Year Ending
September 30, 2005, and for Other Purposes, Conference Report to Accompany H.R.
4613, Hr 108 Á 622 (Washington, D.C.: US Government Printing Office, July 20, 2004)
p. 240.
Dept. of the Air Force, Fiscal Year (FY) 2006/2007 Budget Estimates, Research,
Development, Test And Evaluation (RDT & E), Descriptive Summaries, Vol 1, Budget
Activities 4 Á 6 Feb. 2005, p. 801.
U.S. Senate, Armed Services Committee, Strategic Forces Subcommittee, statement of
Gen. Lance W. Lord, Commander, Air Force Space Command, March 16, 2005. See also
Elaine M. Grossman, ‘‘U.S. General: Precise Long-Range Missiles May Enable Big Nuclear
Cuts,’’ Inside Defense , April 28, 2005.
Eloise Ogden, ‘‘Conrad: Review poses risk,’’ Minot Daily News, Aug. 11, 2005, Bwww.
For more information, see Bob Preston, et al., ‘‘Space Weapons, Earth Wars,’’ RAND
Project Air Force, 2002, pp. 40 Á 41; ‘‘Michael Goldfarb, ‘‘The Rods from God,’’ The Daily
Standard , June 8, 2005.
Preston et al., ‘‘Space Weapons, Earth Wars,’’ pp. 131 Á 171; Bruce M. DeBlois, Richard
L. Garwin, R. Scott Kemp, and Jeremy C. Marwell, ‘‘Space Weapons: Crossing the
Rubicon,’’ International Security 29 (Fall 2004), pp. 70 Á 74; David Wright, Laura Grego, and
Lisbeth Gronlund, The Physics of Space Security: A Reference Manual (Cambridge, MA:
American Academy of Arts and Sciences, 2005), pp. 89 Á 96.
House Armed Services Committee, National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006,
Report of the Committee on Armed Services, House of Representatives, on H.R. 1815 , Report
109-89, May 20, 2005, House of Representatives, p. 202, Bhttp://armedservices.house.
gov/billsandreports/109thcongress/HR1815report.pdf!. Jeremy Singer, ‘‘House Bill
Would Strengthen Nunn-McCurdy Provision,’’ C4ISR Journal , June 6, 2005, Bwww.isr
journal.com/story.php?F 0896788!. The Nunn-McCurdy law requires the Pentagon to
notify Congress when cost growth on a major acquisition program reaches 15 percent. If
the cost growth hits 25 percent, Nunn-McCurdy requires the Pentagon to justify
continuing the program based on three main criteria: its importance to U.S. national
security, the lack of a viable alternative, and evidence that the problems that led to the
cost growth are under control.
Congressional Budget Office, ‘‘The Long-Term Implications of Current Plans for
Investment in Major Unclassified Military Space Programs,’’ Sept. 12, 2005, Bwww.
Leonard David, ‘‘Spy Satellite Debate Comes Out in the Open: Senate spat brings new
attention to stealth programs,’’ Jan. 3, 2005, MSNBC.com website, Bhttp://msnbc.msn.
Sen. Wayne Allard, R-Colo., ‘‘The Greatest Threat to U.S. Space Dominance,’’ Space News ,
Oct. 3, 2005, p. 4A.
Selected Space Research in the President’s FY2006 Budget Request (All amounts in millions
of dollars)
35 0603006A
57 0603308A
139 0605605A
26 0603401F
27 0603444F
28 0603500F
53 0603858F
60 0604855F
61 0604856F
75 0604421F
77 0604441F
206 0305910F
Command, Control,
Space Application
Army Missile
Defense Systems
Space Control
9.3 9.5 12.1 ( 11.0 11.1 6.4 6.4 6.5
5.4 6.8 9.1 ( 11.0 11.1 6.4 6.4 6.5
34.7 32.1 9.3 1.0 14.8 13.4 16.3 23.0 23.7
0.9 0.9 1.0 0.0 2.7 6.2 6.9 12.8 12.6
18.2 15.1 17.7 1.1 18.4 19.1 19.2 19.7 2.0
105.6 89.8 60.9 ( 67.2 78.7 84.1 92.4 94.1
32.5 26.8 19.0 0.7 18.9 25.6 28.3 30.1 30.7
30.2 23.4 22.0 ( 26.3 29.1 32.3 35.5 36.1
50.2 58.2 5.8 ( 6.0 6.1 6.6 6.7 6.9
58.2 56.9 27.0 ( 68.6 69.5 72.5 77.9 82.8
18.1 19.0 20.9 ( 21.2 22.2 22.0 28.2 28.7
6.1 9.4 7.2 ( 12.0 12.8 12.8 7.9 8.1
13.0 14.9 14.2 0.1 23.3 31.0 41.1 42.1 42.8
8.8 8.6 9.5 0.0 12.7 16.0 21.1 21.6 22.0
USAF 4.2 6.3 4.7 0.0 10.6 15.0 20.8
     325.1 467.2 835.8 ( 1068.2 20.0 1917.4
                       356.6 20.4
                             1928.8 2390.0 2462.8
568.5 1068.4 1315.8 1410.7
Advanced USAF
Spacecraft Payloads
Integrated Space
Demonstrations [XSS]
Maui Space
Surveillance System
Multi-disciplinary Adv USAF
Dev Space Technology
Advanced Optics &
Laser Space
Advanced Space
Space Control
Insertion Planning and
Space Range
Space-Based Radar
Responsive Launch
Common Aero
Counter Satellite
Reconnaissance System
Rapid Identification
Detection and
Reporting System
Counterspace (OCS) C2
Infrared Systems (SBIRS)
High EMD
Space-Based Space
USAF 165.1 73.8 225.8 ( 356.2 USAF 21.5 33.1 23.5 0.1 35.5 USAF 17.0 16.5 27.4 0.2 32.5 31.7 39.8 92.7 94.1
USAF 70.7 26.1 24.7 ( 30.5 30.7 75.0 76.7 78.0
13.1 6.1 6.4 0.0 6.6 6.8 7.0 7.2 7.3
49.5 0.2 0.0 ( 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
8.2 16.2 18.3 ( 23.9 23.9 68.0 69.5 70.7
0.0 3.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
USAF 621.8 594.2 756.6 383.2 653.7 532.6 382.1 336.7 269.0
USAF 90.8 139.0 151.1 0.3 210.6 354.6 431.6 598.6 593.3
     57.4 81.5 84.2 ( 109.9 192.9 201.4 292.1 206.1
APPENDIX (Continued)
29 0603175C
33 0603287E
50 0603765E
70 0603882C
Space Situational Aware-
Sensor Service Life
Extension Programs (Sen-
sor SLEPs)
Orbital Deep Space
Imager (ODSI)
Ballistic Missile
Space Programs and
Orbital Express
Space Surveillance
Space-Based Radar
Technology (ISAT)
Deep View
Spacecraft for the
Modification of
Classified DARPA
Ballistic Missile
Defense Midcourse
Defense Segment
Multiple Kill
Ballistic Missile
Defense Sensors
Space Tracking and
Surveillance System
Space Tracking and
Surveillance System
(STSS) Block 2006
Space Tracking and
Surveillance System
(STSS) Block 2008
Space Tracking and
Surveillance System
(STSS) Block 2010
Space Tracking and
Surveillance System
(STSS) Block 2012
Ballistic Missile
Defense System (BMDS)
Interceptors Test Bed
Near Field Infrared
Experiment (NFIRE)
Special Programs
(formerly ACES)
All Program
Space Control, Force
Projection and related
Weapons as a
2004 2005 2006 '/( 2007
11.9 12.0 16.3 0.1 11.1
17.8 36.8 25.5 0.3 31.1
2009 2010
8.8 25.1 0.1 58.4 141.6 221.6 297.7 378.4
226.8 231.1 136.2 ( 184.9 197.2 205.2 212.4 218.8
( 264.3 309.3 327.4 348.7 350.7
3650.8 3315.5 3183.6 2545.9
38.8 15.6
18.6 12.8
12.5 25.0 50.0
46.0 45.0 43.0
223.8 46.6 17.5
      18.7 41.2
222.9 44.4 14.3 10.3 10.3
      10.6 12.6 22.4
211.2 180.8 162.5
3711.7 4501.5 3266.2
308.2 113.5
1214.0 1186.1 1069.2 1018.6
577.3 529.8 ( 995.7 274.9 303.6 231.7 ( 420.4 533.8 614.2 758.8 98.1
            260.4 281.7
262.8 255.8 231.2 208.2 64.5 11.1 7.7 7.1
0.0 0.0 0.0 45.2 29.3 24.1 14.1 13.8
12.1 47.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.5 167.0 440.0 579.0 737.0 77.3
114.7 279.8 229.7 444.9 677.2 1137.3 1468.8 1717.5
417.8 0.0
248.0 230.0
826.2 1097.3 1015.2 1244.1
68.0 13.7 10.8 231.2 349.5 482.9 6265.2 7613.1 6848.1 8632.5 10263.511630.1 12157.4 1787.8 2114.3 2695.3 3423.8 4793.2 6016.4 6792.9 5404.5
247.8 218.5 247.8 435.0 494.3 653.2 819.1 610.3
14% 10% 9% 13% 10% 11%
How to Read the Tables in this Article
The information in these tables is largely drawn from the ‘‘descriptive summaries’’ (R2s)
that the Department of Defense submits to Congress as part of the President’s Annual
Budget Request (PBR), also known as the Future Years Defense Program (FYDP).
Advanced Spacecraft
R1: The Summary Budget Justification Material submitted by the Defense
Department contains a list of Research and Development Programs called the ‘‘R1.’’
These programs are numbered sequentially by DOD Component (Army, Navy, Air Force
and Defense Wide).
Program Element (PE): The Program
Element Number is the ‘‘building block’’
Budget Activity
of Defense budgeting.
01: Basic Research
02: Applied Research
The first pair of numbers *06 *
03: Advanced Technology Development
indicates that the program element falls
04: Advanced Component Development and Prototypes
under research and development. The
05: System Development and Demonstration
second pair of numbers *03 *indicates
06: RDT&E Management Support
07: Operational Systems Development
the ‘‘budget activity’’ or level of develop-
ment (at right).
The final three numbers distinguish one program element from another.
The final letter indicates the ‘‘component’’ *Armed Service or Defense Agency *
that is responsible for the work. In the unclassified budget, most space accounts are
assigned to the Army (A), Air Force (F), Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (E),
and Missile Defense Agency (C).
Therefore, PE 06 03 401 F is an Air Force (F) Research and Development Program (06)
in the Advanced Technology Development Stage (03). To know whether Congress
appropriated the full amount requested by the president, look at the 26th entry under
Research and Development *Air Force in the appropriations legislation.
The FYDP also contains recent appropriations (2004 and 2005), the current request
(2006), and anticipated future requests (2007 Á2011).


"Sunday, January 19, 2014

ALERT: Germany and Ending Gold/Silver Manipulation...IT'S HAPPENING!

To: "V.K. Durham"
Sent: Sunday, January 19, 2014 2:42:31 PM
Subject: ALERT: Germany and Ending Gold/Silver Manipulation...IT'S HAPPENING!
Just a quick note to put a few things into perspective on the latest announcement in the Mainstream Media that the Gold market is rigged.

First here's the article on Bloomberg:

Metals, Currency Rigging is Worse Than LIBOR, Bafin Says

Professor William Black-System is Ungovernable, It has already Largely Imploded

"Police investigate former Thatcher Cabinet minister over child sex abuse
Exclusive by Neil Mackay
Sunday 22 December 2013
A former Cabinet minister in Margaret Thatcher's government is being investigated in connection with historic child sex offences and is facing arrest in the near future, the Sunday Herald has learned.

The former Tory politician is being investigated by detectives leading Operation Fernbridge, which is investigating claims that political figures and others sexually abused boys at various locations in England.

There have already been two arrests: one, a former care-home boss, and the other a Roman Catholic priest.

Scotland Yard said last night that the charges related to seven victims aged between nine and 15, with the alleged offences dating back to the 1970s and 1980s. A third, unnamed man was interviewed but later released with no further action taken.

The Thatcher-era Cabinet minister is believed to be the highest-profile target of Operation ­Fernbridge detectives."


"Secret networks of Freemasons have been used by organised crime gangs to corrupt the criminal justice system, according to a bombshell Metropolitan Police report leaked to The Independent.
Operation Tiberius, written in 2002, found underworld syndicates used their contacts in the controversial brotherhood to “recruit corrupted officers” inside Scotland Yard, and concluded it was one of “the most difficult aspects of organised crime corruption to proof against”.
The report – marked “Secret” – found serving officers in East Ham east London who were members of the Freemasons attempted to find out which detectives were suspected of links to organised crime from other police sources who were also members of the society.
Famous for its secret handshakes, Freemasonry has long been suspected of having members who work in the criminal justice system – notably the judiciary and the police.
Te first thing that came to mind was the movie “From Hell” about Jack the Ripper.  In it, the Freemasons run the police and justice system of the UK to cover up who Jack the Ripper really is,.. one of them.  This is certainly bad news for Freemasons in the UK.  They will be highly scrutinised now I should think.  This doesn’t quite prove they run the world with the NWO in mind and all of that bt it is a real conspiracy with real consequences and that might be even more compelling.  -Mort"



Senator Leahy Tries To Sneak Through Plans To Make Merely Talking About Computer Hacking A Serious Crime

from the that's-not-good dept

You may have heard about the recent high-profile, malicious hack of Target's point of sale systems, giving the attackers access to the details of at least 40 million credit cards. Senator Patrick Leahy is, incredibly cynically, using this news event to try to sneak through a change to the "anti-hacking" law, the CFAA, which was used to prosecute Aaron Swartz and many others. And it's not a change to improve that law, but to broaden it, extending massively how the DOJ can charge just about anyone they want with serious computer crimes. This is monumentally bad, and Senator Leahy is trying to hide it behind a major news event because he knows he couldn't get this kind of DOJ wishlist through without hiding it.

Officially, this is Leahy reintroducing his Personal Data Privacy and Security Act -- a bill he's tried to introduce a number of times before. The crux of that bill makes some sense: requiring companies that have had a security breach to inform those who were impacted. State laws (most notably, California's) already include some similar requirements, but this is an attempt to create a federal law on that front. There are some reasonable concerns about such a law, but the general idea of better protecting the public from data breaches, by at least letting them know about it, is an idea worth considering. "

The White Rabbit!  
PS Send friends Hero Humans! That's how we grow!  Send:
TWEET/FACEBOOK(1): #OccupyTheBanks Operation #OTB

Bases Update 008 Blog Reports JEY ET INTEL UK/GLOBAL UPDATE viia Cook Miles Rovaing 5D



CIA Mind Control Experiments Declassified Documents Reveal Sex Abuse, More

In the course of my life, I knew a young woman who was ‘mind controlled’ and learned about her firsthand efforts and struggle to free herself. She could never be sure she would not get up and go out at night and have no remembrance of it in the morning. . ~J
Source: WantToKnowInfoThanks to V.
Dear friends,
Tragic, heartbreaking mass murders in recent years have spread fear and panic among the general public. Yet some are questioning if there isn’t more than meets the eye to these cruel and bizarre events. Is it conceivable that there might be a deeper agenda here? This essay presents undeniable evidence that secret government mind control programs have created assassins out of unsuspecting citizens.
The astonishing excerpts below, taken verbatim from declassified CIA documents, reveal detailed mind control experiments in highly secret, government-sponsored experiments. Through hypnosis, drugs, and electric shock, CIA clinicians fractured personalities and induced multiple personality disorder (MPD) – also called dissociative identity disorder (DID). These top secret experiments were successful in creating Manchurian Candidatesor super spies programmed to carry out assassination, terrorist acts, sexual favors, and more without conscious knowledge of what they were doing. The army of Manchurian Candidates created may have played a key, hidden role in world politics.
To verify this startling information, links are provided to scanned images of the original CIA documents. Instructions are also available here to order any of these documents directly from the CIA using the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). Though dating from the 1950s and 60s, these revealing documents were not released for decades for reasons of “national security.” The U.S. government claims mind control experiments are no longer being carried out, yet how can we know? The existence of these programs was denied for decades, and certainly any recent documents would be classified secret under the rubric of “national security.”
A trusted CIA informant I know assures me that these programs are ongoing. These disturbing methods are used by various countries in clandestine operations around the world. Many might prefer not to look at these ugly wounds to the soul of our nation and world. Yet if we avoid or ignore them, they are likely to grow and fester. Only by having the courage to look into the shadow parts of our world can we first understand and then begin to heal these wounds. See the What You Can Do section near the bottom of this essay for more valuable information on how you can help stop the craziness and bring this vital information to light."
Notable Human Sauces used in cooking of this particular Quantum News by ... The White Rabbit! 
Further Research

No comments :

Post a comment

Only members (obviously) can comment; no moderation; direct to page.

Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.