Von Braun’s 50-Year-Old Secret:
The US Explorer I Discovery
that Could Have Saved
the World ….
By Richard C. Hoagland
© 2008 The Enterprise Mission
I, we described surprising -- and apparently
totally unrecognized, until now -- pivotal new details around
the seminal events which quietly unfolded the night of January 31, 1958
-- when the United States finally carried out its first successful launch
of an artificial Earth satellite, Explorer I.
How, Wernher von Braun -- "Operation
Paperclip" chief German rocket engineer, and head of the US Army
effort that actually launched Explorer I (using the Jupiter-C
rocket that von Braun and his German team had specifically designed) --
was, at first, intensely disappointed ... then, obviously surprised and
overjoyed ... and finally, completely baffled ....
By the totally unexpected orbital performance of "his"
first US satellite.
For -- mysteriously -- Explorer I had reached
an orbit of the Earth that night fully one third higher
than the one (green line - below) originally planned!
We also noted in Part I of this report the immediate --
and still continuing -- national security classification of these
amazing scientific findings, which have both prevented open civilian research
into the far-reaching implications of Explorer I's astonishing
"anti-gravity" behavior for these past fifty years ... as well
as any application of those findings to desperately-needed energy
or transportation problems here on Earth.
Yet, despite this "security lid," we
were able to document von Braun's surprising, clandestine, years-long
personal search -- following Explorer I -- for "answers"
to these inexplicable celestial-mechanics questions ... which eventually
set him on a remarkable one-man quest for "an entire alternative
physics" -- which could explain America's first satellite achieving
an orbit (yellow line - below) for which von Braun's own rocket was literally
incapable of reaching ... on its own.
But, even more remarkable ... Explorer I was
not alone in this achievement!
Review of the publicly-available
data revealed the equally-unexpected "over
performance" of two additional
Explorer satellites in von Braun's early Army program, as well
as similar "mysteriously enlarged orbits" of all three
successful US Navy Vanguard satellites ... to the point where
the latter have now become the
oldest man-made artifacts still orbiting the Earth!
And yet, as also noted in our first section -- even after
fifty years -- no one seems to have noticed or asked any in-depth
questions about this astonishing sequence of events: the repeated,
gross violations of both "Newton's Laws" and "Einstein's
Relativity" ... in the launching of America's first satellites!
To say nothing of the simultaneous appearance of enormous
quantities of literal "free energy" ... in each of
their much larger orbits--
All ... apparently from nowhere!
* * *
In this -- Part 2 of our continuing
investigation into von Braun's amazing "secret" -- we will now
lay out, based on our own ~ 20 years of "hyperdimensional
research and experimentation," just
how we "figured it out"; how we have been able to "back
engineer" what von Braun (and
JPL ...) themselves eventually had to have deciphered about
this startling phenomenon, and what it could mean even beyond "a
fundamental revolution in celestial mechanics ...."
Explorer I's radically "non-Newtonian"
orbital behavior (and that of the other US satellites' ...) must rank
as THE major scientific and political discovery of the early
space program ... if not the last fifty years of solar system exploration!
Regardless of the public secrecy and security classifications
that high-level governmental policy makers immediately placed around this
night, the question which MUST be asked now is: "were von Braun (and
his associates at JPL) eventually able to turn this revolutionary scientific
Into a workable technology?
A technology which ultimately could control even--
And if so, has this overwhelmingly important technical
and political development also been officially kept secret,
literally for decades ... from both the American taxpayer ... and the
As noted earlier, our own ~ 25 years of research may have
given us a technical advantage that von Braun (at least, initially ...)
did not possess: a working scientific theory (the Hyperdimensional
Model) -- which, from the beginning, has predicted distinct "non-Newtonian"
spacecraft motions and behavior ....
There is, however, another school of thought vis a vis
"what did von Braun (and other Operation Paperclip Germans) really
know about Explorer I's 'non-Newtonian dynamics' ..?" --
an historical perspective extensively documented and discussed in
the works of our friend and colleague, Dr. Joseph Farrell:
In this discussion, there was the
definite possibility that von Braun (after all, once a Major
in Himmler's "SS" ...), in fact, was privy (along with other
key members of his own "Operation Paperclip" imported German
team ...) to a major, ultra-secret, Nazi black-ops SS
research and development program -- termed "the
Nazi Bell Experiment" (above and
below); an extraordinary experiment which (according to officially
declassified "intel" documents from Eastern Europe, made available
after the reunification of Germany ...) "manifested several, extremely
anomalous phenomenon .... "
Which would have been, of course, directly relevant
to Von Braun's own ability to instantly recognize the similar "non-Newtonian
behavior" of Explorer I!
After looking at this really hard, I happen not
to share this point of view ... and neither, by the way, does Dr. Farrell.
If von Braun had been knowledgeable about prior "...
Nazi inertia and gravity-control experiments" ala "the Bell,"
why did he then personally go "in hot persuit" of an alternative
physics theory to explain "the inexplicable" around
Explorer I?; in other words, why was he so obviously
Why, as part of his major effort to understand the startling
phenomenon that accompanied Explorer I's launch into orbit, did
he subsequently write to all those "alternative physicists"
around the world, seeking a new theoretical "non-Newtonian
solution" to "the Problem?"
Why not simply, quietly, consult with more knowledgable
members of his own German team ... in terms of details of the Bell Experiment
he might not have personally known?
In fact, von Braun's well-documented, "inquisitive
behavior" -- after the "shock" of Explorer I --
compellingly argues for a distinct lack of knowledge of the "Nazi
Bell" on his part ... and certainly, a total ignorance of the radical,
alternative physics that the Bell manifested to those directly interacting
with its technology ... to the point of actually killing some
of the scientists and technicians involved during the SS-run experiments!
However, there is one other possibility ....
That von Braun might have heard "just enough"
about the Bell (from "someone" that he trusted ...) to impel
him -- after his Explorer I experience -- to seek further information
... to find independent, contemporary confirmation of the existence
of such a "radical, alternative physics" ... on his own.
Whatever the facts around his "curious interest"
in such physics (and we may never know, for sure ...), unlike von Braun,
we at Enterprise, as previously noted, had the distinct
advantage of a remarkable, redundant, beautifully convergent series of
non-classified "anomalous gravity and inertia experiments"
to start out with -- when we began seriously to examine "the Explorer
In addition, also unlike von Braun (if you totally discount
the "he knew about the Bell" scenario ...), we had the distinct
advantage of a set of precise theoretical predictions from our
"Hyperdimensional Model" to go on ....
All of which formed an extremely solid foundation from
which Enterprise could attempt to "back engineer" the
ultimate process von Braun and JPL must have used in their years-long,
documentable efforts to "figure out the Problem."
* * *
It is at this point that we must introduce another remarkable
player in this "drama" -- the late "alternative physicist,"
Dr. Bruce DePalma (below).
DePalma (whose brother is the well-known Hollywood director,
Brian DePalma) started his career by graduating from MIT the very year
von Braun put Explorer I in orbit -- 1958. In graduate school,
he pursued electrical engineering -- both at MIT and Harvard.
After grad school, DePalma went to work for some of the
Nation's most prestigeous scientists and scientific institutions -- serving
as Lecturer at
MIT under Herold Edgerton; and Head of Photographic R&D for Dr. Edwin
Land -- at the famed Polaroid Corporation.
But after almost 20 years of watching the American Science
Establishment "up close" -- as it repeatedly ignored new experimental
evidence in favor of traditional theoretical "explanations"
-- DePalma one day got fed up, and decided to resign ... to create his
own independent research organization -- which he called "The Simularity
Based in part on his extensive lab experience with rotating
electrical equipment (motors, generators, etc.), DePalma initially became
fascinated by the electrical and inertial properties of "magnetized
gyroscopes ...."; after leaving MIT and extending this to gyroscope
dynamics in general, he investigated a wide-ranging series of "systems
in rotation" ....
Which is how our totally independent research paths eventually
In 1989, as Erol Torun and I were just beginning to grapple
with some of the higher-level
implications of our brand-new "Hyperdimensional (HD) Physics
Model," paraphrasing the old joke about "the most important
things to remember about business real estate ..." I paraphrased
a (somewhat flip ...) response to a similar question about our work--
"What are the three most important things to
remember about 'Hyperdimensional Physics?'; rotation ... rotation
... rotation ...."
Later, when I went looking for a serious "alternative
physicist" (meaning, someone who was open to the "unexpected"
...) to run some of our HD ideas past, a major figure in the "free
energy" community, Don Reed, strongly recommended that I talk to
It was probably one of the most important recommendations
I've ever received ....
As noted above, DePalma -- since the 1970's -- had been
carrying out perhaps the most exhaustive laboratory studies of "bodies
in rotation" -- including MASSIVE objects (~ 30 pounds ...), spinning
at very high velocities (~ 7600 revolutions per minute ...) -- that I
had ever seen (below); he had, thereby, accumulated an extensive experimental
database on a subject not normally dealt with in mainstream physics or
Matching our theoretical predictions of "the HD Model"
against Bruce's extensive experimental lab results in rotation, became
one of the true joys of our initial professional collaboration.
For instance, early on Bruce introduced me to the simplest
-- yet, probably, the most profound -- of all his many rotational experiments.
He just called it (fittingly ...) "the
Conceptually, the experiment could not
have been much cheaper, or easier to carry out:
Two 1-inch steel balls (like those found
in every pinball machine in America ...) were positioned at the business
end of an ordinary power drill; one ball was in a cup attached to the
drill's motor shaft, so it spun -- at a very high rate of speed; the other
ball was in an identical cup, attached by a bracket to the stationary
drill casing, adjusted so that it was level with the first ball.
The experiment consisted of positioning
the drill vertically, cups "up," and pressing the drill switch
on the motor.
The drill motor (and its associated cup,
containing one of the steel balls) rapidly spun up to approximately 27,000
RPM. The cup attached to the side of the drill (with the second steel
ball inside it ...) was not rotating ....
When the drill motor had attained its
maximum speed, DePalma (or, more often, Ed Delvers, his assistant ...)
would shove the drill into the air with a fast, upward motion -- suddenly
stopping the drill it in mid-flight. This would, of course, cause both
1-inch pinballs to fly out of their retaining cups in the same upward
direction -- the "spinning ball" (hence the name ...) and the
non-spinning ball, right beside it.
DePalma, from his years spent working
Herald Edgerton at MIT -- the famed inventor of "stroboscopic
photography" -- was an expert in such stop-motion photography as
well. By positioning Delvers against a gridded black background, in a
darkened laboratory (below), and then illluminating the two upward-flying
steel balls with a powerful strobe light, DePalma was able to
take time-exposure photographs with the camera's shutter open, the "pinballs"
only illuminated (at 60 times per second) by the strobe's periodic flash
The result was a striking "stroboscopic,
time-lapse photograph" of the parabolic arc of both steel balls --
flying upward and then downward under Earth's gravitational acceleration
Looked at even casually, one can instantly see in the
resulting time-lapse image (above) that the two pinballs did NOT fly along
identical parabolic arcs (as they should have); unmistakably,
the steel ball that was rotating (at ~27,000 rpm) flew higher
... and fell faster ... than the companion ball that was not
An experimental result in direct violation of everything
physicists have thought they've known about both Newton's Laws and Einstein's
Relativity ... for almost (in the case of Newton ...) three full centuries!
The above ~ 34-year-old image is a recent scan of one
of the original "spinning ball photographs" from DePalma's own
~30-year-old files, contrast-adjusted in PhotoShop (with text and grid
added), to bring out the data in the faded original. Nothing else has
been added or altered.
What this photograph reveals is truly remarkable ... for,
in direct violation of both Newton and Einstein, it SHOUTS that
"inertial mass" and "gravitational mass" are NOT equivalent--
Thus violating the foundation of all modern physics
in one elegantly simple experiment -- which anyone can safely
repeat ... even at home!!
* * *
When I first saw the orbit of Explorer
I (below, right - outer blue line) -- compared to the intended
orbit (below, right - inner red line) -- my thoughts instantly flashed
to the DePalma's remarkable (and highly controversial) "spinning
ball experiment" (below - left)--
The physics of each was identical
-- a "mass" thrust vertically against the pull of Earth's gravity
by an "outside" force; in Depalma's case, literally the hand
of the experimeter -- throwing the two pinballs simultaneously into the
air at the same speed; in the Explorer I example, von Braun's
Jupiter-C rocket supplying the "outside force" -- accelerating
the satellite into a trajectory fast enough and high enough to eventually
"fall around the Earth" without hitting it ... the quintessential
definition of a satellite orbit.
Was it possible that von Braun had -- inadvertantly
--somehow duplicated some aspect of Depalma's elegantly simple
"spinning ball experiment" that night in January, 1958 ... some
~ 20 years before DePalma would, in fact, carry it out?!
Was THAT why Explorer I had been
boosted so much higher than originally planned that night ...?
Could it be as simple as ... that!?
Of course, this didn't explain anything about
why the DePalma Spinning Ball Experiment works the way it does
... the underlying physics that (somehow!) changes a spinning
object's inertia against "an outside force," compared to one
that's NOT spinning ....
But, it was a start!
Now, as I've often noted "science is
nothing ... if it's not prediction."
For this comparison between Explorer
I and DePalma's elegent experiment to physically hold true, for it
to be real science -- there HAD TO BE some aspect of von Braun's
Jupiter-C rocket that was spinning ... during and after launch,
as Explorer I was injected into orbit.
Here is George Ludwig's (Van Allen's assistent
on the Explorer I electronics)
official description of von Braun's modifications of the "Jupiter-C"
-- before the effort to launch Explorer I:
" ... as the building of the Army’s
Redstone rocket was nearing completion, the ABMA group undertook
the development of the Jupiter rocket, a much longer-range Intermediate
Range Ballistic Missile. As a part of that program, in order to
test nosecones for reentry through the atmosphere, they developed
a special test vehicle to achieve the necessary high velocity. Since
it was part of the Jupiter program, it was called the Jupiter C
(Jupiter Composite). It consisted of a Redstone first stage, topped
by clusters of small solid propellant rockets forming an additional
two stages. It was consciously designed from the beginning so that
an additional stage could be added in place of the test
nosecone to make the vehicle orbit-capable.
"... sixty miles up, 156 seconds
after takeoff, the first stage [would burn] itself out. The three
upper stages with the satellite payload [would then separate] from
the booster and zoom upward, spinning in their tub-shaped assembly
in free-coasting, unpropelled flight, toward the apex ... at which
instant the remaining three rocket stages had to be fired.
"... a radio signal [would then
be sent] to the speeding missile to fire the second stage. Off [would
go] the first cluster of scaled Sergeants, which quickly [would
boost] the speed [of the entire, still spinning "tub"]
by thousands of miles per hour. Seconds later, the next cluster
of rockets [would ignite], pushing the final-stage rocket, with
its satellite, ever closer to that critical orbital velocity. Then
the single rocket in the final stage [would be triggered]. Its thrust
[would drive] the 18.13-pound payload over the 18,000 mile per hour
mark [emphasis added] ...."
And here (below), is a modified NASA-Marshall
Space Flight Center cut-away of the basic solid-fueled upper stages of
the Jupiter-C IRBM configuration. The diagram shows how the third stage
fit neatly inside the second stage (like a set of nested decanter glasses
...), and the entire upper-stage configuration was then rapidly ROTATED
in flight ... as each subsequent stage separated and ignited.
Von Braun and JPL (which designed this rotating,
solid-propellant upper stage configuration ...), as Ludwig wrote, simply
modified their existing IRBM version a bit more, adding a fourth
solid-rocket upper stage (attached directly to Explorer I) --
which then became von Braun's "Jupiter-C satellite launcher."
There -- plain as day! -- was the simple
fact these upper stages (called collectively "the tub") were
all deliberately set spinning just before launch ... to provide
(according to the JPL engineers ...) "gyroscopic stability against
uneven burn of the Sergeant solid rockets in each stage, during their
subsequent ignition phases."
The added color inset (above - left) is a
frame from a 1958 US Army PR film -- showing a top-down view of a one-third
scale model of a "nuclear reentry vehicle" for a forthcoming
IRBM test, carefully mounted on "the tub"; with the cover not
yet in place, you can also see clearly the placement of the 11 second-stage
JPL "Sergeant" rockets, mounted in their circular (waiting to
be spun up ... ) configuration.
The dummy warhead is the purplish "cone"
on top of the (hidden) third stage.
As Ludwig noted, this one-third scale warhead
model was simply replaced in the "satellite Jupiter-C configuration,"
by that additional fourth stage solid-fuel rocket -- atop which was literally
bolted the Explorer I satellite itself (below).
Here (below), JPL engineers work on a full-size
mock-up of this "spinning tub" assembly, with a separate mock-up
of the fourth stage and Explorer I on top -- the full "satellite
version" of the Jupiter-C.
And here (below), is the three-stage "rotating
tub's" operational configuration -- complete with the real Explorer
I -- all mounted atop the conical "instrument section"
and (below that), the liquid-fuel main stage of the Jupiter-C booster
The vertical black stripe painted on the
side of the "tub" is to allow blockhouse engineers to optically
monitor the rate of spin of the three nested upper stages on
the pad, as they were coming "up to speed" (between
450 and 750 rpm ...) just before launch.
So, precisely as predicted by the
HD model (and DePalma!) -- a key section of von Braun's rocket,
in fact, did rotate that night ... as it placed Explorer
I into space!
Mystery of "the unexplained higher orbit"
... finally ... solved.
Well ... not quite, of course.
For, this "confirmation" only deepened
the real mystery:
Why does "spinning" a
steel pinball, or ... rotating a one-ton, high-tech "tub"
-- containing 15 solid rockets -- allow both to climb SIGNIFICANTLY
HIGHER against gravity ... than if they were NOT spinning!?
One of the first reactions I had to this
fascinating confirmation -- that portions of von Braun's rocket HAD to
spin, inevitably (from DePalma's experiment ...) resulting in the higher
orbit for Explorer I -- was a feeling of intense gratification
for Bruce; for, this simple engineering detail proved that Bruce
DePalma has been absolutely right all along ... for over 34 years
... in insisting that "spinning a mass" also creates "some
kind of anti-gravitational, anti-intertial field
..." which allows the object to fly higher against gravity
than if it was NOT spinning!
Von Braun -- decades before Bruce DePalma
ever conceived of his elegant little "spinning ball experiment"
-- had already PROVED Depalma right ... with easily the most
expensive "spinning ball" demonstration one could possibly imagine
(Explorer I cost the American taxpayer approximately
20 million dollars, in 1958; today, allowing
for inflation, that would be something like "half a billion
Further, it was now obvious that this
is why von Braun also missed the Moon ... by those "pesky
~37,000 miles" with Pioneer 4.
Again he was using, in his Juno-2 "moonrocket"
(a further modification of the Jupiter-C ...), EXACTLY the same "spinning
tub" arrangement for the four solid-rocket upper stages that he'd
used in the previous Earth-orbiting Explorer launches; and (from
what we now know ...), the "DePalma Effect" struck again ...
neatly over-accelerating the Pioneer 4 spacecraft to a slightly
higher velocity than JPL had calculated using only standard "Newtonian
dynamics" ... thus, causing the spacecraft to arrive at the Moon's
orbit slightly sooner than it should have ... passing ahead
of the Moon itself (which, of course, hadn't reached the "rendezvous
point" yet ...) by those disappointing "37,000 miles (below)
It all fit -- beautifully.
Of course, the reason why simply
"spinning an object" should so dramatically change its "Newtonian
dynamics" -- against all current mainstream theories (including,
"sacred" Relativity ...) -- was still as profound a
mystery as ever ....
* * *
It is hard to overstate both the scientific
and political significance of von Braun's initial Explorer I
discovery (swiftly confirmed, as we have documented, by Explorers
III and IV, and all three Vanguard launches!) --
as well as all their confirmed connections now to DePalma's totally
independent, rotating laboratory experiments.
Oh, did I forget to mention--
The US Navy Vanguard three-stage
rocket also utilized a solid-propellant in its third stage ...
so, it also had
to be spun
during the burn ... for "stabilization" -- at ~100 rpm (below)!
And, of course, then there was Allais
ALL these independent, dynamical results
revealed "huge, gaping holes ..." in conventional "Newtonian
mechanics" ... to say nothing of what they did to "General Relativity!"
Yet, mainstream science -- and the mainstream science
press, including those covering the space progream for the last
50 years -- blithely went on ... as if nothing was amiss!
DePalma himself, trained as a mainstream
physicist for decades at two of the premier universities on the
planet -- MIT and Harvard! -- wrestled with the extraordinary implications
of his "spinning ball experiment" (first carried out in 1972
...) for years -- before finally publishing some tentative, but
"... the beginning of this author's
work with rotating objects began with moment of inertia measurements
of constrained gyroscopes undergoing forced precession.
The increased moments of inertia discovered for precessional
motion were translated into a series of measurements on pendula
with rotating bobs. Although the discoveries of the inertial
effects associated with precession and pendulum oscillations of
rotating bob weights were highly suggestive, this author greatly
resisted [for several years] attempts to force him to drop
a rotating object for two reasons.
"Firstly, he had no reason to be able to
predict the motion of a freely falling object on the
basis of the inertial alterations he had measured which had concerned
themselves with constrained situations of rotating objects. Second,
there was no reason to expect inertial alterations [because of
Einstein's inviolate "Principal of Equivalence"]
to affect the rate of fall of a released object and there
was no available theory which could in any way be applied
to the situation or a falling rotating object in a gravitational
field. This is a situation known in religious terms as a "leap
into the dark."
"Since the author and his assistants are
experts in the application of stroboscopic lighting techniques
to the study of high speed motions, the first experimental cut
at the situation was to photograph the trajectories of a steel
ball bearing rotating at a high speed together with an identical
[non-rotating] control object moving at a similar initial
velocity. The result of the experiment was so startling and
anomalous as to have taken me five years to understand.
"... Basically, the spinning object going
higher than the identical non-rotating control with the
same initial velocity, and, then falling faster than
the identical non-rotating control, presents a dilemma which can
only be resolved or understood ... on the basis of radically
new concepts in physics [distinct from the existing "Laws
of Thermodynamics" ... "Newton's Laws" ... or "Special
and General Relativity"] ...
"We know when we can alter the properties
of mechanical objects, i.e. change their inertia, we have
contravened the conservation of energy, because we have associated
the properties of an object with the space which
contains the object. The space which contains the object
also contains energy and we can go at the project in
two ways: we can attempt to extract the energy without worrying
where it came from, or we can attempt to understand physics, ourselves,
and the Universe by a new formulation of reality.
"... The behavior of rotating objects
is explained [after much thought] simply on the addition of
free energy to whatever motion the rotating object is [already]
making. [Thus] the spinning object goes higher and falls
faster than the identical non-rotating control.
"... In terms of the dropping of the spinning
ball, the understanding of the experiment involves the results
of many other experiments as well as the resolution of a mind
picture of the Universe which is our best approximation to understanding
at the present time. What makes it difficult for other experimenters
to understand the experiment is that it is not simply
the results which are important. Without a theoretical foundation
of understanding to make the experiment comprehensible --
to fit the results into a context of rational understanding and
harmony with the facts of other experiments -- the data
become trivial and worthless, and, worst of all, subject to misinterpretation.
"The [technological] availability of free
energy from as simple an experiment as colliding a rotating
object with a non-rotating one opens up the development
of other machines for energy extraction and propulsion which may
be more convenient to handle than the extraction of energy from
the collision of a rotating object with a non-rotating one [emphasis
"... The behavior of rotating
objects is explained simply on the addition of free energy
to whatever motion the rotating object is [already] making. [Thus]
the spinning object goes higher and falls faster than
the identical non-rotating control [emphasis added] ...."
the Dropping of the Spinning Ball Experiment"
Simularity Institute, May 3, 1977
This summation of DePalma's thoughts on the
"spinning ball experiment" is, in my opinion, a significant
summation of the results of all of his decades of ground-breaking
experiments in "rotation."
It is also the key
to understanding exactly what von Braun -- independently, serendipitously
-- actually discovered with Explorer I ... decades earlier
... and then (for whatever reason) decided to keep secret to
the day he died ....
For, after literally years of pondering its
meaning -- in concert with all the other "rotation and inertia experiments"
he had carried out -- DePalma, 25 years after Explorer (and knowing
nothing of its anomalies or its profound significance to his
own work ...), realized that "the spinning ball" was NOT (directly,
anyway ...) about "anti-gravity" at all. That, instead, it represented
a unique window into a far deeper reality ... re the very "energy
structure" of space and time itself ... and the extraordinary
possibilities of extracting that unlimited, "free energy" via
a variety of "appropriate" technologies.
"Energy Crisis -- Solved!" anyone ...?
One of our unfinished, on-going discussions
(abruptly cut short by Bruce's tragic and untimely death, in 1997 ...)
was a resolution of exactly where this "free space energy"
was coming from; in the "HD Model," it is not really
coming from "3-Space" at all -- but literally from "a higher
dimensional reality," made available in this dimension (as a propagating
torsion field distortion -- see Chapter 2 in Dark
Mission ...) via "physical rotation of mass ..."
The act of mere "rotation" -- in
the HD Model -- literally "opens a type of 'gate,' or 'geometric
doorway ...'" between other dimensions ....
Intriguingly enough, our decades-old debates
also now provided another (actually, "collateral"...) explanation
for Explorer I's "orbital overperformance" ....
* * *
DePalma proposed, as a result of his wide-ranging
rotational experiments, that "rotating masses" in general set
up some kind of hitherto unrecognized "inertial field" in their
vicinity (the more widely-used term for this field now, because of how
it's accessed, is a "torsion field" -- because "torsion"
means literally "rotation").
DePalma's exhaustive measurements (like the
Experiment" - below) eventually revealed that this "torsion field"
was "anisotropic," i.e. it was NOT spherical (like a gravitational
or electromagnetic "bubble," decreasing sharply in intensity
with distance ...) -- but seemed to have radically different effects,
and different geometric properties, depending on the geometric relationship
and orientation of the detecting sensor to the axial spin
of the object being measured; this new "spin field" (another
term now in use ...) seemed to be, as scientists term it, polarized
What this means is simple.
If measured along the rotational
axis (as seen in the diagram - above) ... this "torsion field"
from the resulting rotation seemed to increase the inertia of
other moving objects (such as the tuning fork inside the Accutron); but,
if the watch was rotated 90 degrees (below) -- into the plane
of the masses rotation -- the Accutron's tuning fork inertia abruptly
Again, these differences -- measured "within
the spin field" -- were NOT slight ... or ambiguous.
A 1000-second measurement period (~17 minutes
...) produced almost a full second (0.9 sec) lag in the Accutron's
previous time setting; the normal drift rate of the watch -- as measured
by DePalma before and after each experimental "run" -- was about
0.25 second per a four hour period .... The
effect of a nearby, rotationally generated "inertial field"
on the Accutron's vibrating tuning fork -- a field created solely by spinning
a ~30-lb aluminum/steel disc, at almost 8000 rpm -- was definitely
NOT "buried in the noise!"
As can also be seen in the above diagram,
because the research of DePalma's "Simularity Institute" was
not funded by "lavish government grants or major corporate
donations ...", sometime the measurement technologies were ingenuously
Unable to afford expensive "electronic
frequency counters" to measure the actual vibrations of the Accutron
tuning fork, DePalma did the next best thing with what he had; he physically
attached the Accutron watch to the face of an electrically-driven "Westclock"
(fed by 60 cycle, "AC line current" from the wall). He then
measured the "time drift" of the Accutron, compared to the clock,
by physically synchronizing the two sweep second hands
-- the Accutron's and the Westclock's -- and then measuring how far apart
their angular positions were when a ~1000-second "rotor run"
Decades later, in 2004, I decided that Bruce's
elegant Accutron-based "inertial field detector" -- if upgraded
with a laptop and a "computerized, crystal frequency calibration
system" (easily affordable now ...) -- would be the perfect sensor
for a variety of HD "torsion field" experiments and measurements
Combining two previous experiments -- DePalma's
Accutron detection of the "spin field" around a massive, spinning
laboratory disc, and Maurice Allais' detection (with a paraconical pendulum)
of equally "anomalous pendulum effects during the 1954 solar eclipse"
(see Part I)
-- I decided to attempt detection of potential "torsion/HD effects"
(if any!) generated from the impending Earth-Venus-Sun alignment during
the rare "Venus Transit" -- to take place on June 8, 2004 (below).
This is an event, which happens only in "pairs"
(separated by 8 years every 122 years ..!) -- where Venus comes directly
between the Earth and Sun ... essentially, a tiny, tiny "partial
solar eclipse" -- caused by the shadowed side of a planet that's
almost the twin of Earth moving inbetween these two other celestial bodies
A friend and colleage, Bill
Alek -- an electrical engineer and computer systems expert, as well
as an Enterprise Associate -- professionally assembled the required
equipment for our "Venus Transit Experiment" (see schematic
- below). He even included ~150 feet of electrically shielded cable, to
isolate the Accutron from the quartz-crystal time standard (and the laptop)
we were using to gauge (to millions of times DePalma's own measurement
precision!) the Accutron's inertially-induced, potential tuning
fork vibration changes ... during the actual Transit.
Bill's system (as you'll see ...) worked
We decided to choose as our Transit location,
southeast Florida's famed "Coral Castle" (an entire story in
itself!). We chose the Castle, in part, because toward the very end of
this particular Transit, as Venus was about to leave the disc of the Sun
... the Sun itself would rise (for us ...) over the Atlantic Ocean horizon!
And physical sunrise -- according
to our previous hyperdimensional calculations -- was a particularly propitious
time to be measuring the possible "torsion alignment effects"
of the Sun ... "rising over the eastern horizon of a spinning Earth."
To make a LONG story shorter ... the torsion/HD
effects of Venus -- as it was physically departing the western edge of
the Sun (as seen in the Florida sky at dawn ...) -- were simply astonishing
Based on the major frequency "jump"
of the Accutron tuning fork occuring EXACTLY at the moment of
3rd Contact (when Venus' edge just "kissed" the Sun's western
limb - above) -- from ~360 hertz (cycles per second) to 364.5 hertz --
the extrapolated daily acceleration of the Accutron
at that rate was about twelve minutes per day!
For a watch normally rated (by Bulova) as
"... accurate to a minute a month."
Clearly ... unquestionably--
"Something" had reached out from
Venus at the precise moment it was geometrically projected against the
visible edge of our closest star -- when, remember, Venus was
~25 million miles away from Earth -- and (somehow!) "touched
" our little Accutron detector ... with an inertial change
to its tuning fork fully one sixth of the same effect DePalma
had previously measured ... when the watch was mere inches
from a massive ~30-lb steel/aluminum disc, spinning at 7600 rpm, in his
Venus and the Sun -- by means of their own
extraordinary masses and separate, but reversed, rotations (Venus spins
backwards, remember ...) -- were obviously creating their own
extraordinarily powerful, interfering "torsionl fields"
-- just as we predicted!!
Which (from the frequency plot - above) were
clearly able to send successive, "interfering waves"
of torsion (note the descending, "bell-like ringing" ... as
Venus fully "cleared" the Sun) to visibly interact with,
and change the inertia of, the tiny tuning fork inside
It was an extraordinary and startling scientific
moment of discovery -- a clear, measureable demonstration of
the reality of DePalma's rotationally-induced "inertial/torsion fields."
But, more than that, it was a vivid confirmation that outside the lab
... celestial "planetary alignments" of major members of the
solar system (Hyperdimensional Astrology, anyone ...?) can and
do have extremely powerful -- and physically measureable
-- effects on Earth--
If you have the correct physics
model ... and the right detection equipment!
As I watched the Sun rise over the edge of
the Atlantic -- with tiny Venus (remember, the size of the Earth ..!)
just dimpling its western edge, and, unbelievingly, simultaneously watched
the computer screen trace the invisible "torsion field" interactions
between Venus and the Sun at that same moment -- I couldn't help but wonder--
"What would Bruce think about this
DePalma had a quirky sense of humor, perhaps
best revealed by his naming of this mysterious "inertial field"
... the "OD field."
Thinking of DePalma at that remarkable moment,
I couldn't help but also think "how odd ... that he's not here to
* * *
Depalma had observed himself years before,
the resulting influence of these "OD field" effects -- be it
from spinning laboratory discs ... rotating planets ... and even massive
stars (!) -- is NOT limited to mechanical objects, like "tuning
As he noted--
"... the effect of a field which
confers inertia on objects immersed within it can be
applied to a number of [other] situations, not all of
which have to be mechanical, i.e. chemical reactions
are [also measureably] affected by such a field. Reactions which
do not take place under 'normal' conditions may be catalyzed.
Other reactions may be inhibited [emphasis added] ...."
Returning us to the problem of von Braun's
Confirmation of DePalma's
projected"OD field chemical effect" (to use his term ...) raised
the fascinating prospect that the physical act of rotating those upper
rocket stages of the Jupiter-C had also, somehow, altered
the physical chemistry of the solid rockets in those
upper stages! This, in turn, could have markedly increased the efficiency
of their previously estimated thrust and/or ISP!
That their physical rotation (ala DePalma
...) had significantly altered what was occurring at the moment of
ignition -- by triggering a fundamental enhancement of the
rockets' chemical reactions ... during the actual burning of
the solid propellants!
previous analysis, that "... the behavior of rotating objects is
explained simply on the addition of free energy to
whatever motion the rotating object is [already] making ..."?
What if, as DePalma theorized, this fundamental
"free energy" addition also extended down to the atomic
and molecular levels?!; what if the "addition of energy"
-- to whatever motions are occurring within "the OD field"
of a rotating system -- also automatically enhances the thermodynamic
efficiency of reactions occurring at the molecular and atomic
levels in that system!?
In other words: what if the sheer rotation
of those solid-propellant upper stages, by being enveloped in
their own "OD field," substantially increased their ISPs
... and thus, their effective thrust efficiencies?!!
Could "Von Braun's
Secret" that night have involved far more than just a blatant
violation of "Newton's Laws ..." (as serious as that obviously
was ...) caused by an inertial change in those upper stages created by
"rotation?"; could "the Secret" also have encompassed
an almost trivial means of tapping directly into unlimited "free
energy" for ANY chemical reaction -- by the simple act of rotation
As should be readily apparent to anyone thinking
deeply about all this, von Braun himself clearly (if inadvertantly)
had tripped over "a vast source of free energy in
space..." -- simply in those mysteriously enlarged "satellite
orbits" -- regardless of the details of how he actually
did it ....
Which "they," for obvious reasons
(Big Oil, anyone?), immediately suppressed ....
Imagine what the world would look like now
... in 2008 -- half a century after these historic events ...
if, instead of being immediately hidden, this extraordinary discovery
had been triumphantly announced within a few days by the Eisenhower White
House ... and then, made openly available to scientists and engineers
around the world ... even in the former Soviet Union.
Would we even recognize our planet
* * *
With our clear identification of Explorer
I's "non-Newtonian anomalies" as being due to the rotation
of the launch vehicle's solid-rocket stages, the celestial-mechanics "fix"
for future US space missions -- including the Apollo Program -- was as
simple as it was obvious:
So, the fascinating question then becomes:
"when" did von Braun and JPL also come to this critical
In other words, when did they "figure
out" (regarding Newton's Laws ...) what Bruce DePalma, independently,
would also realize
through experiment ... two decades later?
"The fact that Newton’s
Laws do not distinguish between the spinning and the
non-rotating object represents the state of mechanical knowledge
at the time. But because Newton did not distinguish between rotation
and non-rotation, Einstein did not distinguish between the so-called
inert and 'gravitational mass.' The fact that rotation affects the
mechanical properties of objects places Newton’s Laws as a
special case and invalidates a geometrical [Einsteinian]
interpretation of space.
"… in a strict sense, the
precise application of Newton’s laws [based on these experiments]
… have to be restricted to non-rotating mechanical objects
in field-free space. In a gravitational field, the possibility of
extraction of greater energy by a new mechanical dimension [rotation]
opens up the possibility [against both Newton and Einstein] of an
anti-gravitational interaction [emphasis added] ….”
& The Spinning Ball Experiment"
Simularity Institute, March 17, 1977
So, von Braun and Pickering eventually realized
that, if you wanted a spacecraft to follow predictable Newtonian
celestial mechanics -- in Earth orbit ... going to the Moon ... or traveling
Rule One -- don't let it rotate!
As we described in Part
I, this now explains JPL's (as viewed at the
time ...) "highly risky sudden spacecraft engineering decisions ..."
to abandon well-tested spinning system concepts (used in JPL's
previous Explorer series ...), and to severely"push the
envelope" -- to embark on a radically new type
of spacecraft construction ... pioneered in (what would soon become ...)
Ranger Lunar Program":
A Program attempting
to make available to US space planners, for the first time "... a
three-axis, non-rotating, fully stabilized spacecraft design."
Seen against the serious space navigation
problems of the "non-Newtonian anomaly" (that JPL was also obviously
racing the clock to try to "figure out"), this risky engineering
decision, in hindsight, now makes perfect sense.
So, the question looms ... again: "when
did JPL first realize that rotation was 'the enemy?'"
To answer that key question, we must go back
once more in time ... to before the shock of Sputnik.
* * *
Bill Pickering was named Director of JPL
Immediately upon Pickering's appointment,
as part of his own long-term agenda to turn JPL "into the premiere
space laboratory in the world ..." the new Director began pushing
a plan to the Pentagon (the only agency funding "space" in those
pre-Sputnik days ...) for an unmanned lunar probe, called "Project
Red Socks" (and,
try as I might, I cannot find out where this name originated!
As an emigrated New Zealander, I'm convinced Pickering was NOT a fan of
"a certain Boston baseball team ..." so, the origin of this
proposed name remains ... obscure).
In an era when the idea of just launching
"a satellite into orbit ... " was viewed by Washington as "still
one step removed from science fiction ..." (remember, this is why
the "Jet Propulsion Laboratory" -- which never built
a "jet," but designed only rockets in its early years
-- decided to use the more "acceptable" designation "jet"
in all its contracts with the Army ...)--
Pickering's idea went ... nowhere.
Pickering promptly resubmitted "Project
Red Socks" (which, by then, had morphed into an entire "JPL
unmanned lunar program ...") to the Pentagon.
Again, it went nowhere--
Until ... months later ... the newly-formed
ARPA suddenly latched onto the idea, renamed it "Project
Pioneer," and split the program (and the contracts) between the US
Air Force and the US Army (with JPL getting the job of building the Army's
lunar version ...).
What's fascinating about "Red Socks"
is how Pickering was originally proposing to send an umnanned
spacecraft to the Moon ... and get it back.
For, in his design, the spacecraft was to
carry a high-quality reconnaisance camera loaded with film (no
"television") ... which would loop around the Moon (red line
- below), acquiring photographic-quality images of the entire
"hidden side" ... before physically returning to Earth,
reentering ... and then being retrieved -- so that the film could be developed
and physically examined at JPL!
(Two decades later, the Soviets would do
EXACTLY that ... with Zond 5, in late 1968. And -- they'd use
"Eastman Kodak film" to do it!)
Pickering built his proposal around von Braun's
parallel development (discussed earlier ...) of a "survivable reentry
vehicle" for a nuclear warhead, yet to be tested (in 1954) by a Jupiter-C
IRBM (below). This indicates the extremely close working relationship
between Bill Pickering and Wernher von Braun, long before Sputnik
and Explorer (note the 11 Sergeant rockets visible in this photograph,
down through the holes in the top of the Jupiter-C's rotating "tub"
-- just below the one-third scale model of the reentry vehicle itself).
However, there was one major detail about
"Project Red Socks" which, in hindsight, could make one question
what von Braun and JPL really knew about the entire "non-Newtonian
anomaly" ... and, when they knew it; this
detail centers on that fact that, if it had been funded, Pickering's "Red
Socks" proposal would have encountered exactly the same
"non-Newtonian problem" ... and for exactly the same
reasons ... as Explorer, Vanguard and Pioneer ....
As you can see from this artist's concept
(below), the Red Socks design also featured "a ring
of solid-fueled rockets, surrounding a single upper stage
..." -- to which the camera-carrying lunar spacecraft would have
Like the later Explorer I and Pioneer
Jupiter-C configurations -- with their own "spinning upper stages,"
and "spacecraft bolted to the final rocket!"
Here (below ) is the startling visual comparison;
on the right, Bill Pickering (in 1992), holding a plexiglass model of
In the background of
the same photograph (to his left -- with cylindrical housing removed ...),
a scale model of the upper stage "spinning tub" of von Braun's
Jupiter-C satellite launcher, with the Explorer satellite attached.
Note again, the circular placement of the 11 "cut-down Sergeant rockets"
of the second stage, and the conical housing of the third stage (hiding
its three additional cut-down Sergeants) protruding from their center
... to attach points on the solitary fourth stage -- with the (thermally-striped)
model of Explorer I on top.
The comparison graphic (below- left) is Pickering's
earlier "'Red Socks' upper stage and lunar probe configuration ...."
Pickering was (obviously) "playing to
unique history" with his 1954 proposal
-- the solid rockets that, up until that point, had formed the
foundation of JPL's entire reputation ... the solid rockets that Jack
Parson's had successfully created, decades earlier ... for a laboratory
which (some still insist ...) actually bears the initials of his name,
because of that singular, far-reaching contribution to the American space
And, though it's not overtly stated by any
sources I could find, Pickering's plan to use an array of these solid
rockets to send a camera to the Moon would have automatically demanded
that they also spin -- otherwise, the unbalanced thrust
of their individual variations (as we have seen ...) would have sent the
proposed lunar spacecraft careening wildly off-course ... the same reason
that the upper stages of the Jupiter-C (and the Juno-2 lunar version ...)
also had to spin.
But, looking at these (essentially ...) identical
upper stage configurations, I couldn't help but wonder once again--
"What did Bill Pickering (or, his JPL
engineers ...) really know -- and when did they first
know know it ... about the other effects of such an upper stage
For, while working on ever larger versions
of Jack Parson's solid-fuel rockets after WWII (below), even then
some JPL engineers were looking
upward ... toward the Moon--
"... the most famous JPL product
of that time was a small-scale prototype of Corporal called WAC
Corporal (Without Attitude Control), some of which were used as
a second stage of [the] V-2, reaching altitudes of more than 400
km and inaugurating, on [sic] 1950, the atlantic coast missile
range which became the Cape Canaveral 'spaceport.' While working
on this historic project, some laboratory engineers calculated,
as a joke, that by using the full scale Corporal missile and a
cluster of anti-aircraft Loki solid-fueled rockets, it was
possible to hurl to the Moon ... an empty beer can (emphasis
With a spinning upper stage configuration,
as we now know, that "empty beer can" easily could have grown
... into a full-fledged camera-laden mission!
So, when did Pickering first realize
that the "secret" to significantly increasing the ISP efficiency
of his JPL solid-fueled rockets (and thus, their payloads) was
just ... to "spin them!?"
And -- when did he first tip off
von Braun ...?
From the "spinning technology"
of the mysterious Nazi Bell, to the "spinning upper stages"
of Pickering's aborted "Project Red Socks," to Pickering's extension
of that same "spinning technology" to the upper stages of von
Braun's own Jupiter-C launch vehicle itself ... rotation seemed
to professionally surround von Braun at every turn (sorry ...).
Yet, after the startling anomalies of Explorer
I, von Braun himself seemed profoundly shocked, if not genuinely
confused, by the dynamical behavior he was observing. What did he do then?;
he began secretly writing to key experts around the world, to
anyone who might have a clue as what had really caused
Explorer I's (to him ...) "inexplicable behavior."
Not exactly the actions of "somone in
So, did either of them -- Pickering
or von Braun -- know, before Explorer I, what was really
In my professional opinion -- based on this
extensive research into von Braun's actions following Explorer's
launch (and Pickering's equally documentable, independent,
herculian efforts to overcome -- with an entirely new type of
spacecraft -- the "non-Newtonian anomaly" in the wake of Explorer
Neither man ... knew anything!
Life is simply full of "irony and strange
(some might even say 'hyperdimensional') coincidences ...."
The fact that Pickering's "rotating
solid-rockets" were the only available means -- both to
an early satellite launch into Earth orbit, and to early efforts
to send a US spacecraft to the Moon, and, that in order for them to work
as advertized, they had to spin -- is, in my opinion,
just exactly that:
A remarkable ... almost providential ...
historical ... coincidence.
The fact is that von
Braun had to choose Pickering's "rotating, solid-rockets"
... if he wanted, at that point of US technological development, to successfully
And, if all this hadn't been just
"sheer coincidence" ... JPL wouldn't have immediately undertaken
the almost impossible task of creating an entirely new space technology,
after Explorer I -- a non-rotating lunar and planetary
spacecraft "bus." And, von Braun wouldn't have held out for
four full years (as we noted in Part
I), before suddenly, without any prior warning, reversing
his previous position and approving "LOR" for the Apollo
Program ... after he (we believe, from all the evidence) finally got the
word that JPL had "fixed" the "non-Newtonian problem."
However, all that said ...
it is this remarkable set of "conspiring coincidences"
that has now given us a stunning new set of blatant clues -- "...
those mysteriously enlarged, totally revealing, satellite orbits
of the Earth ... " (that no one can successfully suppress
much longer) to the almost unlimited potential for HD Physics
... right here on Earth--
To truly change the world ....
* * *
So, just how certain am I that these remarkable
HD "rotational effects" can now account for the all
flagrant Explorer, Vanguard and Pioneer satellite anomalies?--
About ninty-nine percent ....
There were subsequent instances
of these same "HD rotational effects" observed in the continuing
Explorer Program, which reinforces the idea that it was also due
to this same "anomalous physics" ....
George Ludwig -- Van Allen's chief assistent
(and designer of all the electronics for the radiation detectors carried
in the Explorer spacecraft) -- wrote a remarkable personal
description of one fascinating ... and now quite telling ... subsequent
"incident." It is clear, however, that he too obviously had
no idea what he was actually witnessing ....
"... my Journal also reported
... the most serious problem from my point of view ... the
difficulty in commanding playback of the [spacecraft's on-board]
tape recorder. When the spin-up of the upper rocket
stages was started at X-11 minutes, the recorder operated normally
at first. But by the time the spin rate reached 550
revolutions per minute (out of 750 rpm needed for flight)
we were unable to get a response from our radio commands
for playback. The Launch Director interrupted the spin-up, slowed
it down, and then increased the rate gradually. Playback was successful
at 450 rpm but not at 500.
"All of this was happening within the final minutes of the
countdown, while the rocket sat there fully fueled and ready to
go. The pressure for a final go/no-go decision was intense, as
further delay would have meant canceling the launch for that evening
and recycling for the following day or later. While we held up
the launch for 18 minutes, the payload manager, other payload
engineers, and I had a spirited discussion, and concluded that
the problem was with the on-pad commanding link, not the recorder
itself. Specifically, we believed that there was a problem
with the grounding path for the interrogating signal, and
expected that operation would be normal once the rocket was free
of the cluttered pad environment. We all agreed to proceed
based on that assessment.
"The official launch time was 1:28 PM, EST on Wednesday,
5 March 1958. Performance of the Redstone first stage booster
rocket appeared to be normal throughout its burning. Later analyses
indicated that the firing of stages one, two, and three were all
normal. However, the fourth stage apparently failed to ignite,
for reasons that were never completely determined, and
the launch attempt failed. The satellite payload plummeted into
the Atlantic Ocean about 1900 miles downrange from Cape Canaveral
[emphasis added] ...."
By his own admission, Ludwig's dismissal
of the pre-launch "tape recorder problem ..." -- as "merely
radio interference from the clutter on the launch pad," exacerbated
by the high-pressure "go/no go" pre-launch enviroment -- unfortunately
encouraged the collective decision to "just resume the count and
launch ..." without taking the time to properly analyze
the situation. Which, unfortunately, resulted in the subsequent loss of
the entire spacecraft "for reasons that were never completely determined
Decades later, through another of his remarkable
"rotational experiments," DePalma would (again!) expose the
real "HD Physics" behind what likely happened to Explorer
Following DePalma's many experiments -- that
had increasingly verified the existence of a remarkable, uniquely geometric
"OD field" around all massive, spinning objects
(and even small ones ...) -- DePalma naturally began to wonder about the
effects of such an "inertial field" on non-mechanical
systems ... specifically, on complex electronics ... like "an off-the-shelf
FM stereo receiver" (below).
Here's DePalma's description of an experiment
he neatly carried out, to determine what those effects actually might
"... because of the uniqueness
of the [OD field] behavior, corroboration [of an electronic effect]
was attempted in the form of an experiment to alter the tuning
of a radio-frequency circuit oscillating at 106 megacycles
[megahertz]. The expected effect did indeed take place
with a frequency shift measured to be about 2500 cycles
[2.5 parts in 10(5)] relative to an oscillator located
remotely at a distance of 70 miles and communicated to it by radio
[emphasis added] ...."
a New Theory of Physical Phenomena"
Simularity Institute, June 15, 1973
The results of DePalma's "inertial field
radio experiment" are illustrated below.
The frequency plot of the received FM signal,
when the ~30-lb, aluminum/steel disc was NOT rotating, is displayed as
the essentially horizontal "noisy" white line on the bottom
of the graph (lower right). The frequency of the received signal when
the disc was spinning (at ~8000 rpm ...) is displayed in
yellow (upper right).
An artistic rendition of the FM transmitter
is on the left.
The fact that the distantly transmitted signal
(when the receiver was "within the field" of the rotating disc
in Depalma's lab) seemed to have a semi-regular "frequency periodicity,"
indicated that the generation of an "OD field" by physical rotation
was also NOT a "static phenomenon" ... but seemed to have multiple,
drifting, interfering frequency components of its own
-- which resonated (in some, still undetermined fashion ...)
with the receiver's own electrically resonant circuits ....
Exactly like what we saw -- when measuring
(with the Accutron ...) the "OD field" from Venus, "interfering
with" (modulating ...) the Sun's much greater "OD field"
DePalma (remember, an MIT/Harvard electrical
engineer ...) described his first impressions of the "radio shift
experiment," based on the "variable inertia" model, thus--
"... the radio frequency shift
experiment demonstrates the existence of a phenomena, created
here on Earth, which can alter the frequency of an oscillating
circuit, independent of any electro-magnetic interaction.
The phenomena of electrical resonance is created through the interaction
of inductance and capacitance existing in what are known as lumped
circuit elements. As these are real physical objects, we should
expect that any field or effect which altered the inertial
properties of the materials from which these are made would
affect the frequency of vibratory electrical resonance [emphasis
Later, as we have seen, DePalma rethought
some of these initial assumptions -- and moved from "the OD field/torsion
field creates a true variable inertia in physical objects,"
to a model which invoked the field's ability "to channel energy from
the vacuum" (hyperspace!) into existing energy processes
already occurring in these 3-D objects ....
In that model, the effect of the "rotational
OD field" on the stereo receiver's circuits could be viewed as directly
altering either their voltage, reactance or amperage (or, all three!)
... leading, in the end, to the same rhythmic, resonant frequency
changes that were observed ....
Whatever the ultimate physical process (and,
unfortunately, DePalma never had adequate resources to determine what
that might have been ...) the fact that an "OD field" -- from
an EM shielded, spinning laboratory disc -- could significantly
affect the electrical circuitry of an off-the-shelf stereo receiver
placed withinin mere proximity, has extraordinary, far-reaching implications
Including ... for the failed attempt to launch
Clearly, Ludwig's Journal description of
what occurred, as "the tub" was gradually spun up to its rated
"750 rpm for flight," and the failure of the tape recorder (newly
added for this mission) radio commanding circuits suddenly occurred
"above 500 rpm ..." is compelling evidence that it was the ROTATION
of "the tub" which (somehow ...) was "the problem."
However, completely lacking ANY appropriate
physical theory (unlike us ...) as to how a physically rotating
set of rockets could possibly affect the radio circuits of the
Explorer II spacecraft, the Launch Director (with Ludwig's grudging
concurrence ...) decided to proceed ....
With the unfortunate, disasterous consequences.
It doesn't take much extrapolation from DePalma's
historic "radio frequency experiment" -- carried out within
the powerful torsion field of his rotating laboratory disc -- to envision
what happened to Explorer II; somehow, the "torsion field"
created by the spinning "tub" above 500 rpm, altered
the electrical properties of the on-board tape recorder radio circuits
just enough ... to interfere with their ability to carry information
reliably to and from the ground.
Unknown to the launch team, these same "inertial
field effects" likely were ALSO interfering simultaneously with the
firing circuits of the fourth stage itself [perhaps, because
of physical proximity of both sets of the wires leading to the tape recorder
in the satellite, which (remember) was physically bolted to the top of
the fourth stage]!
Clearly, in light of DePalma's definitive
radio experiment (and at a frequency only slightly different than Explorer's
108 megahertz!), the evidence is heavily in favor of "an HD Physics
cause" for the subsequent inability of Explorer II to successfully
The first compelling case for a truly "hyperdimensional
failure" in the US space program!
* * *
Which brings us to the little matter of "the
Unlike the Americans, because the USSR was
using BIG converted ICBMS (Korolyov's
"R-7" boosters - below) to put their "several-thousand-pound
satellites" into Earth orbit [or to send their first, almost half
ton (!) unmanned lunar probes toward the Moon], they didn't have
to rely on "marginal clusters of solid rockets" in the final
stages, to "barely put up a few-pounds ...."
Ergo ... they didn't have to spin their
So, why -- with a liquid fueled (kerosene
and liquid oxygen), non-spinning "Block E" third stage
-- weighing over a ton itself, and
directed to the Moon by a set of sophisticated "state-of-the-art,
radio interferometry navigation beams" from Earth--
Why, with all that going for them ... did
the Soviets still miss the Moon on their first try by those "~3700
And why, ten months later ... did they then
"get it right" (somehow) and squarely hit it?
The answer to that fascinating question which,
on the face of it, would seem to undercut our entire thesis in
this paper -- that, to invoke HD Physics and the "non-Newtonian anomaly"
in celestial navigation, requires that some part of the booster rocket
Is, in fact, the visible exception
... "that proves the rule."
Because, again -- drawing on the actual HD
experiments conducted by DePalma -- we've even been able to figure out
the answer to that mysterious little Cold War question:
The key to solving this remaining "celestial-mechanics
mystery" is in this little gem from
Bruce DePalma, once again--
mechanical energy of motion, stored in the
created inertial property, od, appears as an inertial field.
This inertial field has the property of conferring inertia on
surrounding material objects -- and a reduction in the frequency
of oscillating electrical circuits placed in the vicinity of the
energized machine [emphasis added] .... "
Even in non-rotating spacecraft
... in their boosters ... in their "instrument units" ... what
is the one thing which is always rotating -- even if
the vehicles do not.
All spacecraft (and their associated
launch vehicles ...) have to have a number of whirling gyroscopes
in their on-board "inertial navigation systems." These devices
literally steer the vehicles, providing on-board 3-D coordinates for ground-based
navigation and (along with other on-board devices, called "accelerometers")
provide absolutely critical reference points for any spacecraft
trying to reach any distant destination ....
The gyros always have to spin!
Back to DePalma--
the [inertial altering, OD field] effect is roughly proportional
to the radius and mass [of the rotating object]
… and to the square of the rotational speed
[emphasis added] ….”
So, if you have a big "dumb" object
-- like a main stage booster, or a set of upper stages -- and you spin
them ... you get a certain "OD Effect," depending on how fast
If you have a set of tiny, low mass
objects -- the gyroscopes in the on-board inertial navigation systems
-- but you spin them "like the proverbial bat out of hell ..."
you can get a MUCH greater proportional effect--
Because -- their individual torsion fields
are directly proportional to the square of their individual rates
The key is in DePalma's crucial observation
"... this inertial field has the property of conferring inertia
on surrounding material objects."
What happened to the Soviets was elemental:
The torsion fields of the internal, spinning
gysroscopes -- rotating upwards of ~100,000 rpm -- conferred their
torsion field effects to the larger vehicle ... causing
it to drift off a "straight Newtonian trajectory" ... across
~240,000 miles ... by just enough to miss the Moon by that "...
By Luna -2 (ten months later ...) the Soviets
had obviously "figured this out" ... and, made the appropriate
"mid-course corrections" enroute to the Moon.
Which then allowed them---
To hit the Moon "dead on!"
Which leaves only the future technological
effects of this extraordinary discovery on the quietly developing private
space programs trying to "get off the ground" -- Burt Rutan,
Sir Richard Branson, Elon Musk, etc., etc., etc. ....
And -- how this same technology can also
now be used to dramatially improve the "everyday lives"
of everyone on Earth!
Stay tuned ....
III of "Von Braun's 50-Year-Old Secret" ... Coming Soon
the Enterprise Conference – and Explore the Implications of This Remarkable
New Discovery with Other Members of the “Enterprise Crew” ….