Said Simple Simon to the Pieman, Indeed I haven't any.
You've managed to hit the nail on the head.
Yes, the media are fairly busting at the seams to spill the beans, but they dare not, so they hint in an progressively heavy-handed manor.
You're partly right about the being obscure so I sound like I know more than I do. I have talked to insiders, and it's true I don't know a lot of
specifics, but I'm not just guessing, either. The other reason I don't lay it all out is psychological: its extent is practically beyond belief. In
fact it took me a year to swallow the scope of the program myself, a full 12 months. Psychologically, it's literally too big to wrap your mind around
in one session. I'm reminded of descriptions I've heard of novices on safari encountering giraffes or elephants at close quarters and later being
stunned when they were reminded they had encountered an entire herd when they could only recall a single animal due to their fixation. Historically,
I've had a poor response when I tell too much at once, and then of course there's also the small matter that I don't have a single hard fact to
hang my hat on.
A couple things I'd like to say about human nature. First, there's an almost orgasmic urge to put new technology into service, particularly
surveillance technology that doesn't harm the target and may safeguard the public. Take the recent reports of NSA surveillance of telecommunications
of U.S. citizens as an example. Can't you picture Dick Chaney absolutely beside himself trying to justify his plans to the Whitehouse lawyers?
(Actually I don't fault the Whitehouse for safeguarding the American public in the way that's been alleged even if I disapprove of the end run
around congressional oversight and the FISA court.) My second point is that if it's human nature to listen at keyholes, it's even more so to gossip
about what you've just overheard. For example, almost nothing in congress doesn't eventually get leaked to the press, secret or otherwise, right? So
my point is that if the technology exists for tracking individuals, the government WILL by the argument of human nature identify groups and
individuals that need to be tracked for public safety in order to justify and authorize the program, the press will learn about it and the information
will get out. Is there any doubt that technology exists for tracking individuals? And believe me, the crowd who are being tracked deserve it; therein
lies the dilemma for the media. They want to gossip in the worst way, but they know they shouldn't, so they hint instead. There's one more aspect of
human nature at play. The cloud imagery and radar references are like a secret handshake, it marks you as having an inside track--whether you approve
or disapprove of the program, it's cool to be in-the-know.
Short of taking you up in a plane or helicopter outfitted with "stealth" radar, I'm not likely to make any converts here. Actually, I'm not trying
to convince the uninitiated, but rather to encourage those who actually know to come out of the woodwork and say so in so many words. (I don't know
why the classified surveillance radar is called "stealth radar" because it gets confused with the common usage of the term which describes an
aircraft designed to avoid radar detection like the B-2 "stealth bomber" and the F-117 fighter. The overlap in terminology may be an intentional
disguise.) If you start poking around on the Internet you'll find a lot of unusual and tongue-in-cheek references to "stealth," and "under the
radar." For instance, there's a production studio called "BTR" which stands for "Beneath The Radar," an album by "Underground" called, "Under
the Radar," and the magazine "Under the Radar." A Yahoo search on "stealth" pulls up 30,900,000 websites even though Wikipedia says,
"'Stealth' is claimed as a trademark by Leo Stoller, who threatens to sue anybody who uses it in a product or company name, domain name, or even in
the text of a Web site."
To make your head really swim, poke around on the site:
Here's an excerpt:
We offer three different options.
Detective Cloud. Our oldest design but still the most popular. Hire rates have been pegged for 1,000 years. Basic surveillance techniques. Floats over
expected position (your co-ordinates). maintains position + or - 1/2 mile. Observes terrestrial activity then reports back to base for de-briefing.
Full report forwarded to client. Illicit picnic liaisons a specialty.
Undercover Cloud. Fulfills all of the above parameters but with an added twist. Whilst Detective Cloud is capable of carrying out 75% of requested
surveillance without detection we have recently had complaints that our clouds are being spotted. To counteract these complaints our Research and
Development Department has designed Undercover Cloud. After 100 years of ongoing development we have the perfect solution. We will position a decoy
cloud at your co-ordinates and (here's the twist in the tail!) we will also position an Undercover Cloud behind the decoy cloud which will peep
around the decoy and make observations. Obviously slightly more expensive than Detective Cloud due to the ongoing costs of 2 clouds but still very
Stealth Cloud. Straight out of our R & D department and top secret (well not any more. Damn!) The ultimate surveillance cloud. N.A.S.A. tried but
failed. Real beaut this one. We have established that the major drawback with our other Surveillance Clouds is that they are static for a long period
of time over the subject and therefore tend to be spotted by them - mainly the (bored) females. We have also noted that our other Surveillance Clouds
seem to be detected more readily when static outside bedroom windows. Not anymore. Our Stealth Cloud is totally invisible! Observations are now
absolutely undetectable. You can't see it. Nobody can. But it's there. Honest. Trust us. Dead expensive." [End of quoted excerpt from
Disclaimer: I'm making no claims of references to government surveillance or to classified government programs for any of the companies, individuals
or websites either directly mentioned or otherwise inferred, just curious observations.
Yes, I did in fact post this same message on Carnicom's chemtrail message board, to which I've been a contributor since 1999 going back to his
original message board. Along the way, I got tired of fighting with the entrenched "chemtrail" mentality. No the government's not trying to poison
us, guys, it's merely spying on us. I've been consistent with my message of aerial surveillance overseen by the NRO (National Reconnaissance Office)
Again, if there're any inductees out there with a spine, "Above Top Secret" is the place to show it.