Gary McKinnon Is Right

Guest Article By Harv Howard

Does anyone with any knowledge about space hardware and our government’s denial of UFOs believe that we don’t have any war vehicles or weapons in space? Are we to believe that we have nothing better aloft than the shuttle that was on the drawing boards for 10 years before it made its first flight in 1981?

Gary McKinnon, to recap the on-going saga, is fighting extradition from the UK to the US to stand trial on charges that he intentionally hacked his way into 90 US military computers and destroyed files, causing thousands of dollars in damage. He has admitted to deleting some email files but hardly to the extent of the charges. 

What has attracted many observers to his case is that when he was initially charged he responded by saying he was only looking for data on UFOs. He claimed that what he found was the real reason he was being persecuted. His most amazing claim is that he found files containing the names of “spaceships.” With a bit of investigation, he claims to have determined that they were actually spaceships and not ships at sea. According to McKinnon, the files were not in themselves exciting, but contained routine information such as details of crew rotations for the ships, etc. 

A discredit to his story, which may be excusable to some extent, is that in subsequent interviews he has mixed in information posted from the internet by individuals who claim that they were privy to inside information about NASA hiding data on UFOs, airbrushing them out of Apollo images and so forth. Two of his erroneous examples have been on the internet for years. (I do not say that they are untrue, but they are definitely not from government sources.)

He is not some teenaged hacker, although he may have acted like one. Now 42 years old, McKinnon did his snooping about six years ago while hidden away in an upstairs bedroom of his girlfriend’s mother’s house. Unemployed, he would spend hours trying to slip his way into US military computers. From the onset of the accusations against him, he has repeatedly stated that the lack of security on many military computers was appalling. Sometimes no passwords were required for admittance to a high-level computer.

The curious aspect of the story is that the US government’s only contention is that McKinnon destroyed vital records that cost thousands of dollars to replace. No claim is made that he stole and disclosed highly secret material. He admits some liability, but the government doesn’t seem interested in following up, despite the fact that this (disclosure of national secrets) would by far be the most serious of his offenses. He counterclaims that the whole case is about what he discovered, not about what he deleted.

Without a doubt, McKinnon could be entirely wrong in what he believes that he learned, or he could be making up his spaceship story in an attempt to protect himself from the charge of deleting records. True or not, if McKinnon, who plans to defend himself at this stage in the affair, intends to use this as the crux his defense it is unlikely to be allowed because it is not relevant to the charges against him.   

Those interested in the outcome wonder why the government is pursuing him in the first place if any part of his claims is authentic. Wouldn’t they want to keep a lid on the whole affair and have him slip quietly away since he had totally embarrassed them by hacking into 90 different computers? Surely, safeguards have now been installed so that nobody can gain access to that data as easily as he claims. So what is to be gained by hauling him to the US to stand trial? 

Is one of two possible government ploys at play? 

The more reasonable one is that they are trying to show that the man is little more than a thief and troublemaker—and they will get him for it—and that his words, his only defense, are a worthless, throwaway attempt to buy himself some credibility if not standing with the public. That strategy will work wonderfully with most common, everyday citizens given that he is a confessed hacker. The man on the street would say to him: “You think we’re gonna send people up in that shuttle and end up killing some of them sometimes if we had a space navy up there?  Hell, boy, come back down to Earth!” Plausible deniability has worked tremendously on the public’s perception when it comes to the UFO issue. So why not in this instance too?

The other, less likely, possibility for prosecuting him is because he has confessed to committing criminal acts. But like NASA’s long, slow, and agonizing process of acknowledging water (and eventually it will be life) on Mars, the government is slowly letting the cat out of the bag through his case. Allowing his vague story to circulate allows for more revelations in the future. Eventually, UFO-type technology must be revealed. Still, allowing his case wide publicity would be done for the general public’s benefit alone. In reality, China, India, Russia, and Japan already know that the triangles are ours and precisely what we are orbiting up there. So who is the secret being kept from? (Frankly, that immensely important program may be the only thing that keeps China from our throats today.)

We may judge McKinnon correct in his assertions despite his obvious problems with accidently hitting the delete key at the wrong times and confusing a couple of internet tales with Pentagon info. We have several good corresponding reasons to make that judgment. 

• Triangles (Earth-to-space vehicles maybe even to Moon and Mars)
• John Walson’s images of large objects in orbit (weapon systems)
• Missing trillions of Pentagon dollars over multiple years (hidden operating costs)
• No replacement of any great distinction for the shuttle (That’s OK, see triangles)
• Strategic Defense Initiative (Star Wars) (It did get off the ground, ask Walson)
• The US Space Command (Not your father’s Apollo CapCom in Houston )

An iron-clad argument for each of these topics could be made, but such an article would be too long. The internet has sufficient info on each point to make the case. The one that needs elaboration, however, is the US Space Command. 

The shuttle program and data from multiple NASA probes garner virtually all of the attention we devote to space issues. If we hear about the Space Command at all, we are led to think in terms of a bunch of radar operators sitting around at Cheyenne Mountain boringly watching long-range radar screens scanning the skies for approaching missiles from our earthly enemies or visiting ETs. It is quite a bit more complex outfit than that. 

In 1989 a book entitled Military Space Forces: The Next 50 Years by John M. Collins, a defense specialist, was produced—if taken at face value, at the request of a few members of Congress—to generally explain to other members of Congress our military’s plans for the defense of space, not exploration. The topic was just defense. A handsome book in large format and 236 pages, it gives a good argument for why we needed to pour money into space defenses. The dedication page is interesting in itself. “To America’s Military Space Forces: Whose purpose is to protect this country’s interests against aggression from or in space.” (Emphasis added.) While the book acknowledges that the Outer Space Treaty signed by 96 nations in 1967 prohibits virtually any military installations on the Moon and other celestial bodies in addition to nuclear and weapons of mass destruction in orbit, it completely ignores those constraints in its pages. 

The book takes as gospel a paraphrasing of an older postulate by Halford J. Mackinder’s Heartland Theory that dealt with Europe.  The new version reads:

            Who rules circumterrestrial space commands Planet Earth,

            Who rules the Moon commands circumterrestrial space,

            Who rules L4 and L5 commands the Earth-Moon System.

The originally duties fell to the Air Force. The Air Force Space Command came into being on Sept. 1, 1982. About a year later, Oct. 1, 1983, the Navy started operations of its Naval Space Command to compliment the tasks of the air force. On September 23, 1985, the US Space Command became the official name of the umbrella organization. On April 7, 1988, the Army was added. The book gives a list options to be activated as development of the structure advances: “Options I, Offense/Defense, Option II, Strategic/Tactical, Option III, Combat/Support.” We can assume that well over twenty years later all aspects are operational. 

Interestingly, the year the Space Command became official, 1985, was the beginning of sightings of triangles in formations. (Anomaly editor’s note—Sightings of triangular objects, and of multiple objects travelling in a chevron or other formations, are as old as reports of anomalous aerial phenomenon and significantly pre-date the sightings of 1985, including a report of a triangular black “spear-like” object amongst others in a formation over Nuremberg, Germany in 1561.) This feature is indicative of operational vehicles in training and not prototypes undergoing testing.  Triangle sightings have increased ever since. By utilizing these three branches of the service, the total massive costs can be diluted to hide the actual amount going into the program. Without a doubt, the army, as part of its role, will use the massive triangles as rapid deployment troop carriers for more earthly ventures. And, of course, navy sea-going ships will be obsolete altogether except for mundane chores.      

The twenty-year-old book goes into great detail about all conceivable aspects of warfare in space including some general pros and cons of lasers, rail guns, and nuclear devices. But it never ventures deeply into exotic territories of future space craft or weapon designs. If we overlook the focus on conventional rocket power (disinformation?) and insert the UFO-like capabilities of triangles, then the whole system of the US Space Command becomes an incredible construct, not merely doable but operational. (The F-117A, the so-called stealth fighter, was operational for twenty years before its existence was announced, as was the SR-21 Blackbird.) What Gary McKinnon claims he found on the government computers may not be just a figment of his imagination, but proof of Mackinder’s words.