NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/alt/conspira/13375

Internet Message Format | 1992-12-23 | 8.1 KB

Xref: sparky alt.conspiracy:13375 talk.politics.misc:65247
Path: sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!news.cerf.net!nic.cerf.net!eidetics
From: [e-mail] (Eidetics Int'l)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Reply to Marc Talbot #2
Date: 23 Dec 1992 18:19:20 GMT
Organization: CERFnet Dial n' CERF Customer Group
Lines: 131
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: nic.cerf.net

[e-mail] (Marc E. Talbot @ University of Illinois at Urbana)
writes:
>As a physics student, I'd like to point out that much of the
>technology described in this letter is very unrealistic.  Does
>whoever's posting this stuff really believe it?
>
>Several points:
>1.  Someone a couple weeks ago asked where Beter actually made any predictions
>that were wrong in his letters.  One might point to his predicting that Reagan
>would be removed from office and replaced with the "Bolshevik" Bush (Beter
>distinctly said that we would be told Reagan was ill or dead).

No, he said it might well happen.  He never said things like this "must"
happen, etc.  All he was doing was making public plans of powerful
individuals, which may or may not succeed, and might change depending on
events.  As it turned out, they did come close to assassinating the President,
but did not quite succeed.  However, it did produce a moment of weakness for
the opposing faction in power, and they were able to use this advantage later
to seize control of the Reagan Administration.

>2.  This stuff about planting underwater missiles around the US.  What's the
>point?  Both US and Soviet submarines have been more than capable of launching
>very effective first strikes at each other.  What would be the point of putting
>more missiles off-shore, especially in places where you can't guard them?  It
>doesn't make any sense from a military point of view.

The answer to this was given in detail in Audio Letter #18.  There would be
many advantages of planting such missiles, not the least of which are
1) surprise, 2) short warning time, 3) greater accuracy because of the shorter
distance, 4) stealth from an attack standpoint.  The need to guard them is
non-existent because noone knows or believes they are there in the first place.

By the way, General George S. Brown, at the time Chairman of the Joint Chiefs
of Staff, apparently thought it made sense.  He met with Dr. Beter for over an
hour in his Pentagon office on 9/16/76 to get locations of these missiles which
he could not obtain from his own intelligence sources.

>3.  If we were installing underwater missiles, and the public was being told
>that we were drilling for oil, don't you think one of the "drillers" would
>have talked by now?  Think of the number of people that would have to have
>been involved.  How do you silence all of them.

Many of the drillers involved were not engaged in any missile-planting
operations or the like, so there is nothing to silence in that group; they
just simply lost money on the venture.  The other ones involved in these
clandestine operations would probably be as likely to talk and incriminate
themselves as a member of the Mafia or CIA.  (And may I remind everyone that
it was in fact a CIA operation: Operation Desktop.)

>4.  This electro-gravitic cosmosphere thing.  Does Beter give any more
>specific details in another of his letters?  I generally don't read them,
>but I had a little extra time today.  I find it hard to believe that the
>Soviets would/could discover some physical principal that is so TOTALLY
>revolutionary, and then not put it into use in industry.  Most non-explosive
>technology developed for/by the military has a wide range of uses in
>industry.  You'd think that a country that was in as bad shape as the USSR
>would have been eager to introduce new technology into industry.  If they
>were holding out for military purposes, why wouldn't they start using it now
>that they are less threatened militarily?  Why wouldn't they sell this
>technology to the US?  Our government would pay a fortune for it.
>Another thing, I've met a number of Soviet physicists (although I've never and
>certainly won't degrade myself by asking about this cosmoshere thing :-)).
>When they come to our research facilities, the thing that has always amazed
>them was our computer technology.  They are at least a good 10 years behind
>us right now (which is quite a ways when we are talking about chip technology).
>The frightening thing is that their missile systems are controlled by these
>same computers...

They originally got much of their computer technology handed over to them by
multinational corporations.  They have apparently used it in the past mostly
for military purposes; perhaps that is starting to change.  But they may not
be ready yet to introduce anti-gravity technology to the marketplace, as it is
still their ace in the hole for defense.  But I imagine they are using it in
space applications.

I would grant you that Russia is behind the US 10 years or more when talking
about consumer technology.  But when it comes to military (and space)
technology, it's a far different story, because this is where they have
historically put most of their money and know-how.  I would say that they are
a good 15-20 years ahead of us in that department.  They have also led the
world for many years in high-energy physics and advanced mathematics.  The
difference is one of emphasis, not ability.

As for cosmospheres (floating platforms), you might want to consider this
quote from General Thomas Power, former head of the Strategic Air Command,
in his book Design for Survival, published in 1965 by Coward McCann, New York.
On pages 243 and 244 he says:

"An aggressor would make the fullest use of the element of
surprise.  This would apply to the timing of the attack as well
as to the employment of some radically new weapon or technique
for which we are not prepared...It is quite possible that the
Soviet surprise weapon would be an offensive space system, but
beyond this assumption we can only speculate.  For instance, it is
conceivable that we may wake up one morning and find a number of
Soviet satellites floating in stationary orbits over every part of
the United States...We certainly must anticipate such a contingency
which is by no means farfetched or far in the future, and make sure
that we have operational defensive systems or measures to cope with
it."

Security restrictions prevented General Power from describing these hovering,
floating devices in detail, which even then were on the technical horizon,
so he substituted the word "satellites", as the public could most easily
understand that.  But being the former R & D head of the Air Force, he knew
that true satellites can only hover in one place in geostationary orbit on
the earth's equator, and not in someplace like the US.  What he was trying to
warn us about was the floating platforms.

>BTW, someone asked this before, and I don't think they got an answer.
>What would it take for those who believe Beter to change thier minds about
>him?  What sort of evidence is acceptable if I were to make a serious
>attempt to convince you he was either nuts or a good story-teller?

Well, for a start, you could follow up on the specific leads given in the
letters as far as stated inconsistencies, strange happenings, and things that
don't quite add up, and see if they lead to a dead end or to something concrete.
So far what has been talked about are peripheral issues or inconclusive without
further information.  (By the way, statements of researchers are not conclusive
to prove something; experts have many times been wrong before about technology.)

For everyone else, too, I challenge them to follow up on the leads Dr. Beter
gives in the letters, wherever possible.  Compare the information found
carefully with the information Dr. Beter gives, and do it honestly and with an
unbiased mind.  Then see how well it matches, and decide for yourself whether
these things are worth investigating, officially and otherwise.  Don't let some
habitual cynic/skeptic try to put predetermined conclusions in your mind.  Use
your own intelligence and common sense.

Thank you,
Jon Volkoff