RAYTHEON COMPANY
During 1996 - 1999 while consulting for the US Government I had a
analyzed/tested/validate the Raytheon NMDTechnology concept. To
my horror on May 7, 2001 during a job interview in Raytheon Arizona
I found that no change of concept was made to NMD technologies.
Raytheon was still implementing the same false concept invented by
MIT/LL.
The only deference existed between Raytheon and TRW [Currently
Northrop/Grumman] was the different mathematical tools used to
implement the false concept.
While [Currently Northrop/Grumman] used mathematical tools named
Fast Fourier Transform, and Kalman Filters; Raytheon used Neural
Connections.
On my job interview Raytheon employees confirmed that their
technology is based on prior and precise knowledge of the warhead
and deployed objects mean temperatures. When I pointed that this
information can NOT ever be known; that the mean temperature can
be within a wide possible rage of temperatures, as the Government
Technical Requirement [TRD] indicated; Raytheon employees stated
that it is the Government problem not theirs. On 2001 I filed the
second Qui-Tam case 01-4937 RSWL were Raytheon is the
Defendant.
But the US Government dismissed qui-tam case 01-4937 RSWL;
Asserting State Secret Privilege, and classifying documents that are
basic scientific laws; NOT to protect National security, but rather
cover-up for ARMY and Government employees violation of law. I
filed an Appeal to the Appeal 9th Circuit Case 03-55571, which is still
pending. Requesting to proof the NMD concept is in violation of the
laws of physics and forever fragile. I requested permission to do that
by the use of basic science without classified documents.
- Please see Meeting_Minute of my Job Interview at Raytheon
Arizona on May 7, 2001. It is also Trial Exhibit # 304.
- Please see Government Asserting State Secret Privilege in
Raytheon Qui-Tam case 01-4937 RSWL .
- Please see my communication with Dr. Sheldon Wald the NMD
Project manager at Raytheon
- On September 26, 2005 Appeal 9th Circuit case 03-55571 was
denied. Please refer to it on my October 10, 2005 - PETITION
FOR REHEARING EN BANC.
- On January 26, 2006 Petition in Appeal to the 9th Circuit case
03-55571 was Denied. "No Judge has requested a vote on
whether to rehear the matter en banc".
|
|