NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/alt/conspira/13391

Internet Message Format | 1992-12-24 | 10.4 KB

Xref: sparky alt.conspiracy:13391 talk.politics.misc:65306
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,talk.politics.misc
Path: sparky!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!news.cso.uiuc.edu!uxa.cso.uiuc.edu!met48546
From: [e-mail] (Marc E. Talbot)
Subject: Re: Reply to Marc Talbot #2
References: <[e-mail]>
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (Net Noise owner)
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 09:36:02 GMT
Lines: 173

[e-mail] (Eidetics Int'l) writes:
>>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.

I'd like to see documentation on this.  What changes occurred in the
administration after the assasination attempt (besides better security)?
One would think that if there had been a power shift in the White House, that
there would be some distinct policy changes.  Can you name any to support your
assertion?

>>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.

Why is this any different from putting your missiles on a sub?  At least on a
sub, you're free to move them around if you feel like it.  Cruise missiles
launched off a sub have properties 1-4 as you listed above, and it would seem
that the subs would be a lot more reliable.

>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.

Is he still alive?  Is there anyone else who can corroborate Beter's claim that
they met to discuss the location of Soviet missiles?  What sort of sources
did Beter claim to have that the US govt would not have access to?

>>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.

Why is it reasonable to believe that they could be so far ahead of us in
astonishing new physics, while so far behind us in every other technical
field?  I would argue that developement of said anti-gravity technology
would be immensely difficult with their computers.

>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.

But military and space technology pour into your consumer technology.  It
doesn't even take more resources!  Once you've developed a better way of
doing something, you let your manufacturers know, then let them go at it
(well, in the US you sell it to the highest bidder...).

Please document your assertion that soviets have led the world for many years
in high energy physics and advanced mathematics.  I would argue that this is
simply untrue.

>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.

Is he still alive?  He'd probably be willing to confirm or deny your
interpretation of his quote.  A more reasonable interpretation of what
he is saying might be that he feared that the Soviets might develop a
space-based offensive weapon system.  From our point of view in the mid
1960s, when the "space race" was in full swing, this was probably a common
fear, since we appeared to be behind the Soviets in space.  You'll note
he makes NO mention of any "anti-gravity" devices, or "cosmospheres", so
I think you are reading in a whole lot to say that he was trying to warn us
about Beter's 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

Thank you for providing a very detailed answer to my questions.  Could you
elaborate on any follow-ups that you have done of Beter's claims?  He makes
valid points sometimes, but they are usually buried under so much conspiracy
guck that it's hard to take seriously.

Marc Talbot