|Home Page | Subscribe | Archive: 2000 - 2012 | Cut to the Chase Radio | Planet X Town Hall|
|Earth | eBooks | ET | Humanity | Nostradamus | Planet X | SciTech | SCP | Space | War|
Will Mars Become a Planet X / Nibiru Flyby Safe Haven for Mankind?
In our article, ‘Nibiru Flyby More Likely in 2012', we challenged the popular notion that Nibiru will appear in 2003, because of the expected size of that planet (according to ancient texts) and its current distance from the center of the Solar System. We have also expressed the the concern that a "2003 non-event" will divert critical public interest away from what portends to be a future concern.
No wonder we feel compelled to ask: are those claiming a 2003 Nibiru non-event simply misinformed netizens? Or, could they be paid disinformation operatives, intent on quelling pubic concern so that governments can quietly make preparations without having to explain themselves? If the latter is true, then perhaps the answer lies not with Nibiru or Earth, but rather, with Mars, and the need to find a safe haven for mankind during a flyby of Nibiru.
Would They Tell Us?
If in fact the government knew well in advance that something of the magnitude of a Nibiru flyby were going to happen, when would they tell us — if ever? Perhaps we take a look at their present reasoning in the context of an impact event with an object large enough to cause the annihilation of the human race.
One high ranking analyst, Geoffrey Sommer, (Policy Studies), Risk Management Division, the Rand Corporation, Santa Monica recently dropped a Freudian dime.
Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, February, 14 2003
One panelist advocated government secrecy if a warning would come too late and make no difference in the outcome. "If you can't do anything about a warning, then there is no point in issuing a warning at all," contended Geoffrey Sommer, of the Rand Corp., Santa Monica, California. "If an extinction-type impact is inevitable, then ignorance for the populace is bliss."
The outrage was immediate and Mr. Sommer responded in a letter to Benny Peiser, which Mr. Peiser published to his mail list. Mr. Sommer is obviously shaken by the response to his statement and this reply is far more revealing that perhaps he would have wished, given more ideal circumstances.
CCNet, February 15, 2003
From Geoffrey Sommer <email@example.com>
I'm afraid that the AAAS press office quoted me rather severely out of context. Their press release (which I didn't get to see until two minutes before the press conference) has me saying "if you can't do anything about a warning, there is no point in issuing a warning at all. If an extinction-type impact is inevitable, then ignorance for the populace is bliss." It prefaces that by saying that I "take the controversial stance of advocating silence and secrecy." I most certainly would not take such an absolute stand. Perhaps you will let me correct the record.
You may remember my presentation at the Western Psychological Association conference last year. I wrote that "surveys confer social benefits only to the extent that mitigation is possible" but qualified certain exceptions in the disaggregate (not necessarily exhaustive): fatalists, religionists, criminals and the "yellow press." "Religionists" was meant to include the "make one's peace with one's God" case. By criminals, I was thinking of looters and profiteers. My point, then and now, was that the primary purpose of a survey is to enable a response, and absent a mitigation capability that purpose is vitiated. The context of all this is an argument for mitigation.
The "ignorance may be bliss" argument is not trivial, however. Analytically, the question is whether the doom-warned population has a negative discount rate - a "dread" factor. Does the population as a whole have a "willingness to pay" to avoid bad news? It's hard to say. Certainly, in the micro sense, the effect is real. Do we prefer a quick (but ignorant) death for Columbia's crew, or do we wish for them more time to "make peace with their God" before their inevitable end? I would guess the former.
Without a doubt, the Rand Corporation is one of the most well respected governmental and corporate think tanks in America. If they are thinking about things like this, it is only because they see a demand for the information. Keep that in mind, when arguing that our government would certainly inform us of an impending Nibiru flyby catastrophe.
The Need for Secrecy
So this brings us the crux of the issue: If in fact, the government has already found and plotted a trajectory for Nibiru, are they evil for not revealing this information? To answer this question, let's compare our Nibiru assumption with a known event — Y2K.
In the late 1990's, the turn of the century loomed ahead and computer experts warned us that the moment that our clocks ticked across the threshold into the year 2000, modern societies would be thrown back into the dark ages as computer systems everywhere failed. While Y2K was a real concern, it really did not amount to substantial proportions until the United States government sounded the alert.
Consequently, computer companies began making Y2K patches for their applications and operating systems. While Mom and Dad were downloading their free Y2K updates from Microsoft and other firms, companies and organizations all across America and the world made Y2K a must-solve problem. By 1999, most corporate information technology divisions were spending 15% or more of their total budgets on Y2K fixes.
When Y2K came, it was really a non-event, sparing a few minor speed bumps of no real consequence. Did the American public and the mainstream media congratulate the United States government and industry for solving Y2K before it became a problem? No! They were humiliated and belittled, especially by mainstream media and by experts like Fox commentator Bill O'Reilly who made scathing and vitriolic attacks on the government officials who had shown the courage to ring the Y2K alarm.
Instead of saying, "we sincerely thank you for showing the courage to share your concerns with us so that a possible catastrophe could be prevented," Mr. O'Reilly and his ilk came across with something best summarized as, "OK you governement knot-heads. We sold some pricey Y2K disaster coverage time and you didn't deliver. We're pissed. You promised us a catastrophe and you didn't deliver. Now we have to give back all these advertising dollars. Man, that really pisses us off. We want heads to roll!"
The bottom line is this, if we and our media are not ready to be honest listeners then we are stupid and we deserve to die. If on the other hand, you are an honest listener, tough darts, farmer; you're the exception and not the rule. Or in other words, if you want the truth, you'll have to peel away layer upon layer of dishonest listeners and media pundits to get at the truth. Or, do an end run around all the nonsense and ask yourself, "if I were a beleaguered government official afraid of announcing an impending catastrophe before Bill O'Reilly labels at such, what would I do?"
That brings us to Mars.
Nuclear Energy in Space
There is a haze of secrecy, a veil of silence, hovering around anything connected to the Red Planet recently. There must be a reason for that. A hint of that reason is this. On January 22nd, a very interesting article appeared on the news section of the BBC website:
BBC News, January 22, 2003
President Bush is set to endorse using nuclear power to explore Mars and open up the outer Solar System.
He is expected to back the US space agency's recent nuclear propulsion initiative, Project Prometheus, either in his State of the Union speech, due on 28 January, or later this year when he submits his 2004 budget to Congress.
It is believed he will give the initiative $1bn over five years, arguing that nuclear propulsion represents an essential technology for the manned and unmanned exploration of space.
The really interesting part of this is that it goes against just about every international nuclear treaty known. Almost every global political effort so far has been aimed at keeping nuclear power and weaponry out of space. Only now, the US government is getting ready to leave that standing point. For the sake of being able to get to Mars and back in reasonable time, they say, we need to switch from chemical to nuclear powering. With nuclear power, the launch window for a Mars mission would be extended considerably, flight time would be cut by several months so more missions (each of them taking less time) would become possible.
There has to be a reason for this sudden change of heart. Why do ‘we' need to get to Mars, and in such a hurry, at that? It almost seems like a rat race is going on to get there, like we are looking for higher ground, a safe place to hide, a safe haven of some sort. At the same time, the Chinese are aiming towards Mars as well in the decade ahead of us.
YOWUSA's Steve Russell delved even deeper into this in his latest article. He indicates that the Columbia disaster is a setback for the Mars program.
YOWUSA.COM, February 14, 2003
In 1989, President George Bush first laid the groundwork for a manned mission to Mars with his Space Exploration Initiative. The initiative focused on the use of nuclear propulsion because it can reduce the time needed to reach Mars by one third that of conventional chemical propulsion systems.
Only the bold will inherit the treasures within the vastness of space and experience the twilight between two worlds. The meek as we've already been told, will inherit the Earth.
Especially the last paragraph of the story quoted here is important. We will look more closely at that below.