ScreenHunter_4090 Jan. 29 21.45
Dr. Joseph P. Farrell
February 12, 2020

Yesterday I blogged about some rather important discoveries made by UFO documents researcher John Greenewald Jr, and what thy might portend for the emerging US Space Force, and one might consider today’s blog a “revision and extension” of remarks with respect to these two articles shared by T.M. and D.M.:

Officials provide details on building the Space Force, its structure, and operating imperatives

There are two facts in these two articles – one fact from each – that really has my high octane speculation motor running in overdrive because of their implications. Let’s take fact number one from article number two, first:

The Senate on June 27 confirmed Air Force Gen. John Raymond as the commander of U.S. Space Command.

U.S. Space Command is being formed with what is now the Joint Force Space Component Command, or JFSCC, that reports to U.S. Strategic Command and is led by Raymond. Once U.S. Space Command is stood up, Strategic Command will no longer be responsible for space operations.

“JFSCC goes away and we end up with two components,” Maj. Gen. Stephen Whiting, deputy commander of the JFSCC and commander of the 14th Air Force, said June 27 in a briefing with defense officials attended by a SpaceNews reporter.

Under the new structure, Whiting will lead the Combined Forces Space Component Command.  (Emphasis added)

Now why do I find that full of high octane speculative implications? Consider: the Strategic Command is the very command and control group responsible for oversight of, and operational planning for, the USA’s strategic nuclear and thermonuclear weapons, from SLBMs, ICBMs, IRBMs, cruise missiles, and strategic bombers. Spinning off space into a separate command therefore carries two potential implications, both mutually contradictory: (1) the Space Command will have no operational oversight over strategic weapons. In other words, the spin-off is designed to send a reassuring message to America’s competitors that the creation of a Space Force is not coupled to the deployment of strategic weapons in space, and is purely a defensive move. This, no doubt, will be the public explanation and narrative. But there’s a second and very disturbing possibility: (2) that the theater of strategic operations and weapons has already moved to space, and thus the Space Command has become the new “SAC,” with operational command over an array of weapons one can only guess at, from “rods of God” to Xray and Gamma ray lasers and so on. In the context of yesterday’s blog, this second possibility cannot be discounted. To put a much sharper point on this, SAC is being demoted, because the weapons platforms over which it has had command and control are fast approaching obsolescence.

This requires us to turn to fact number two in article number one:

Senior officials from the Department of Defense and U.S. Space Force provided the most specific details to date Feb. 5 for how the newly born Space Force is constructed, its structure and the philosophy guiding decisions for bringing the first new military service since 1947 into full reality.

In broad terms, the Space Force must ensure the U.S. continues its superiority in space. Getting there, however, demands that the Space Force be “lean and agile” and mission-focused, said Lt. Gen. David Thompson, U.S. Space Force vice commander.

It must be both cost effective and minimize bureaucracy while also infusing “innovation and improvements, said Thompson, who was joined by Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Space Policy Stephen Kitay, Assistant Secretary for Space Acquisition and Integration Shawn Barnes, and Maj. Gen. Clint Crosier, who leads the Space Force’s planning office. (Emphases added)

It’s that “infusion of innovation and improvements” that indicates that option number 2 above is in play, particularly when considered in the context of yesterday’s blog about Mr. Greenewald’s discoveries in the defense budget, for clearly, those items in the defense budget are about research items that ultimately were designed to “infuse innovation and improvements” into the space force. This phrase, in other words, means that those planning and implementing the organization of the space force are already thinking in terms of the research and black projects component.

If these speculations are true, then we can expect to see certain things by way of prediction and corroboration: the creation of liaison offices and officers to DARPA and NASA, and to the various aero-space defense contractors; in other words, we should expect to see a sweeping reorganization of the Department of Defense. I would suspect that one might even see the subsumption of agencies such as DARPA or NASA within an integrated command structure with a commensurate redesign of the bidding and contract placement process. And with FASAB56, this will be easier to implement than it might first appear.

See you on the flip side…

Read More @


About Joseph P. Farrell

Dr. Joseph P. Farrell has a doctorate in patristics from the University of Oxford, and pursues research in physics, alternative history and science, and “strange stuff”. His book The Giza DeathStar, for which the Giza Community is named, was published in the spring of 2002, and was his first venture into “alternative history and science”.