1945 Ripple Effect

Distortions in the historical continuum of mankind's development can be created by specific or unintended political decisions. Also researchers and writers cannot exclude their own activities from assisting the growth of distortive model. The well-known Hawthorn effect is understood to be difficult to remove from time and motion studies. However there are particular three particular distortions relevant to the evolution of Star Jump science.
 
1. The KIW (Knowledge Invisibility window from 1989 to 1995)
2. MK-ULTRA issues
3. "1945 ripple effect"

The KIW is the least relevant because the period between the end of the cold war monitoring program (1989) and the emergence of accessible data on the Internet (1995) does not cover a time frame where much innovation in this field is known to have occurred. MK-ULTRA, the mind control experiments during the Cold War, is more relevant because the future sanction given to the military in using LSD to hunt for faster-than-light signals may be required. The substance of the "1945 ripple effect" is still classified. So it is a term I invent to refer to the original nuclear secrecy that invalidates the public's ability to make informed decision on most things nuclear, including power stations. For obvious reasons this book cannot expose this secrecy, but you should be aware it is there. Not understanding the reason behind the "1945 ripple effect" will not invalidate the reader's wider appreciation of my book's theories. However my own discovery of the fact was by comparative analysis but I have no way to confirm it to be true. The comparative insight was derived from comparing the ruse surrounding the times of the Normand Landing in 1944 (an elaborate subterfuge to hide the intended beach targets) and the scholarly debate continuing today over the manner of King Harold's death in 1066 portrayed in the Bayeux tapestry.

But you have a right to know what I think. So here goes my roundabout way of explaining my "hunch". If you were launching an apple cake into the market, and after a successful taste test, it sold well, would you launch a new and untried raspberry flavour without testing? In the beginning did you make enough initial apple ingredients to sell enough into the market to satisfy the need to demonstrate profits can be made with your branding and packaging? Or do you instead brew ingredients for two different flavours where you know that selling just one of them, no matter how good, would in itself not be enough for your business to succeed? Are you living in a time of ruses? Is your business planning part of a very large and secret strategy, where in order to tackle Europe you have an audacious plan to divert the attention of your competition with expensive dummy moves?

1945 Ripple Effect continued

70 years on you control "coca-cola" like the secrets of your apple ingredient. Not in a vault, but because at every opportunity you shift a huge supply of the raspberry flavour with much publicity. No one now dares to suggest your apple ingredient could effectively power cities or reach the stars because they are divided on an argument over the merits of your raspberry cakes. Of course you know that you cannot make cakes out of raspberry and that your taste-testing environmental public are just very misguided in celebrating flavoured options. Still since those first flavour tests 70 years ago, people just store them away. You see no reason to explain all your cakes are apple flavour, a reasonable step to minimise others concentrating on the apple flavouring. Anyhow who are you to change the traditions of your business? OK so the apple flavouring might power the majority of cities and vehicles, it would probably power starships across the heavens. But better keep the focus on the raspberry as it has always been so. That is to say throughout this book I am referring to the use of Uranium based weapons to propel space craft and nothing else.

I should say I do not have security clearance on atomic secrets. However the training and tools of historical analysis in later years, combined with the public school leeway given at 16 years old to study in-depth the Manhattan Atom Project at Los Alamos suddenly revealed an awkward truth. Bear in mind this is only deduction and not a fact I can or know how to confirm. I am also not going to directly reveal anything that might prejudice me or you by knowing it. However bear in mind the nature of the secret is so great that it is only passes on from one generation of top leaders to the next. That many of the now retired physicists are still sworn to its secrecy and they soon will be no more. That the secret has very large implications on our understanding of history and in particular the position of many environmentalists in respect to the "carbon free" promises of nuclear power generation. Also that "top leaders" are first politicians and not skilled theorists in the economy or on the environment; hence their "inside" knowledge makes them dismiss any new proposals. That is to say "out of hand" where they can see evidence of the theoretical error caused by the secret, even if the error has no bearing on the validity of the actual proposal.

Hence the recent declassified book by George Dyson "Project Orion" (Amazon - penguin/Henry Holt) is worth a read. There are in my mind two very important revisions needed. Of course un-threading Einstein's theory is not even approached by this book, but as an economist as I can say time frames need to be in journey times of months, not years - regardless of which scientists wish to survive global catastrophe with a gall to blame it on political errors. However should you read Dyson's book, be aware that there is one glaring factual error he repeats. That this error is so glaring, that any "top leader" in the know would dismiss its entire content out of arrogance because they will see in it the error and hence downgrade its value. This is to say the very manner in which a chain of command passes on the atom secret from one generation to another, has a direct effect on how those top politicians can appraise objectively any new materials or theories on nuclear topics.