Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Lyndzee_Grummond

  1. Re: Let's Review KerrTexas, By brief I was referring to the relatively short period of time I will be here (60 days from my arrival). By similar situation I was referring to the Election. L. Grummond
  2. Re: Let's Review Darby, No you and RMT have gone so far as to start a conversation in paradoxes as an attempt to discredit me?? You are just grabbing at anything you can aren't you? Paradoxes are basic time travel conversation! I can name a few myself! Anyway, I simply wanted to refer you to my last reply to RMT as it may apply to you as well. L. Grummond
  3. RainManTime, Even after I directly answer your questions, you continue to try to make an arguement out of them. You say "DARPA is all about military projects!" - I say "That is not the case in 2024." - You say "But, DARPA is all about military projects!" - You say "DARPA doesn't have Co-Directors!" - I say "DARPA does now have Co-Directors, a position which provides me the ability to work with ITI through DARPA." - You say "But, DARPA doesn't have Co-Directors!" What more can I say to you? You are quite stubborn and apparently think that as time passes everything remains the same and things don't change?? Even after I tell you that part of your arguement (while it may have been valid if we were discussing DARPA in 2008 terms) is no longer true, you continue to push it! That is what all of your previous replies have been. Anyone in this forum can find out for themselves that DARPA has undergone a number of changes in its priorities during the last few decades and DARPA has simply gone through another transition between 2008 and 2024 (specifically in 2015). I believe that this back and forth between you and I (and in some cases Darby) is wasting my time and the time of people in this forum. I would much rather focus on answering questions and having a conversation than argue. If you believe me to be a hoax, that is fine, but I will no longer continue this drawn out back and forth with you. I have already directly answered your arguements on OpSec, InfoSec, overall DARPA security guidelines, etc. etc. etc. but you simply ignore them and continue your same arguement. I don't know what else to tell you except that you will apparently have to be one of the people in this forum who will have to await the events and changes I have mentioned here before you realize you are wrong and I am right. I will leave it at that. So I repeat: If you think I am a hoax, that is fine with me, but do not clutter this thread with arguements and accusations and waste the little time I have hear to speak with others. As time passes you will see events and changes I have previously mentioned come to pass (NASA, the ITI, the future Presidential Elections, the Olympics, etc. etc.) and will then see that I am not a hoax. And if you do make it to 2024, which I'm sure you will, then perhaps we shall speak again. L. Grummond
  4. No, overpopulation is not really a problem. ITER has not been completed as of yet. Construction on the project was halted a number of times. I believe it should be completed within a year or two. Video storage is mainly on DVD and Blu-Ray. Because most consumers do not really see a major difference between the two, it has taken quite a while for Blu-Ray to catch on. Only now (after the price for the Blu-Ray DVDs and Blu-Ray players has dropped) has Blu-Ray began to catch up with DVD. I would say that the market is still primarily DVD though. A large number of people also use set-top boxes where they can either store purchased movies or stream rented movies from. (Looks like I just asnwered your next question!) I am not sure what you are referring to regarding "physical videoclubs"...can you elaborate? Of course we have physical bookstores! Books are as popular as ever! I don't think the way to purchase a book has changed at all in decades! Sorry, no flying cars. I'm sure a few "hover vehicles" have been developed and are sporatically in use somewhere, but I don't see a time in the near future where flying cars would actually work in society. Yes, although small, ETA is still in existence. L. Grummond
  5. My_Time, I think you may have misunderstood what I was referring to when I said "yes, this is what I have just stated." What I was referring to was your statement about "Surely the fact that you have written the posts now means they exist now, tomorrow, next week, next year, and in 2024." The simple answer to why I could not see this thread before I left in 2024 is that there had been no travel to 2008 at the time and therefore no posts. Yes. I have stated this before. L. Grummond
  6. DARPA simply isn't involved in space missions. Why would it be when there is already an international coalition dedicated to space travel and exploration? Although you may think that the time travel project could be directly applied to space travel due to a theory or two, it's not exactly that easy. Basically, the technology involves keeping a field open for a certain period of time after the initial jump during which the traveler is able to return. As of now, the amount of time we can keep it open limited to a relatively short period of time (that being the reason my time here is limited as well). In time travel to the future, the simple passage of time itself would prompt the field to expire right after the jump rather than stay open and allow for return.
  7. Why would you try to create an arguement by quoting only single sentence when the sentence itself is the introduction to an entire paragraph explaining why the sentence is valid? Clearly you cannot come up with any arguement against the rest of the paragraph and therefore have made a clear attempt to try and save your weak arguement via 'selective reading'. RainManTime, You have clearly not done your research on DARPA have you? I have already mentioned that DARPA is not solely involved in military projects. If you knew anything about the history of DARPA you would be well aware of its involvement in military and non-military projects. This is even represented by the name changed from ARPA to DARPA to ARPA and back to DARPA. I have already discussed this in a previous post which you must not have read as well. Yet again, your arguement lies dead in the water. Sorry. Still waiting on those questions by the way... L. Grummond
  8. RainManTime, It never did do away with Deputy Director. This is just something you assumed. L. Grummond
  9. RainManTime, As a matter of fact, there is no confusion at all. DARPA isn't staffed by people who can't comprehend a simple hierarchy and the duties of two separate Directors. As I have said previously, my position as Co-Director gives me the special opportunity to work hand-in-hand with the ITI. Additionally, DARPA is a small organization with under 200 employees and really only has two management levels, so, once again, no, it's not too difficult a system to grasp. Someone who actually IS a high-ranking official at DARPA would understand... L. Grummond
  10. Darby, Thank you for your direct question. DARPA itself is not involved in any type of space travel at all. As I have mentioned previously, the United States is involved in an international coalition for space travel and we are not a part of its research, development, missions, etc. in any way. Regarding your second question, when you refer to DARPA I am assuming you intend to refer to the ITI as a whole who works on the time travel technology? I wouldn't say that the ITI "doesn't understand" Minkowski spacetime relative to displacements. You asked as it relates to special relativity and rotations/translations, however at that point one would be more involved in general relativity rather than special relativity. It is usually assumed that spacetime is curved by the presence of matter, however what the ITI's research involves (for example) is use of exotic matter to create a field that can then be used in time travel. Displacements relative to either rotation or translation actually lead into your third question regarding time travel to the future. Because time travel to the future is still in dvelopment, you should understand that I cannot give out too much information regarding the topic, however I can tell you that displacement is the primary issue that currently prevents time travel forward as opposed to backward. L. Grummond
  11. Darby, This is your statement: I may have taken a literal meaning on that, and if so, I apologize for my misreading. I understand what you mean. L. Grummond
  12. Kanigo2, I didn't refer to anyone as a 5-year-old in my last post. I said Darby was "speaking like a 5-year-old" which I don't think anyone would disagree with after reading his last few posts. L. Grummond
  13. BR_Holden, Yes, the Republican and Democratic parties are still the 'strongest', however the number of Independents in public office has increased quite a bit. Proportional representation has not been adopted in the US which is a firm user of first past the post systems. I touched on this a bit in the first questions. Yes, I would say Independents are a bit stronger now than a few years ago. There are 9 Independents in the House and 4 in the Senate. Not a huge increase by the numbers, but precentage-wise the difference is quite large. A real cure for baldness? Although there are a number of treatments or therapies for baldness, I wouldn't say there is a "cure" per say. Along the same lines, there is no "cure" for obesity, but simply a suggested routine of treatment. The world population is 8 billion. The People's Republic of China relinquished its claim over Taiwan in 2014 I believe. China is still a communist country, however it has taken on a number of Democratic methods, specifically economically. The two Koreas have put much into reuniting, however with Kim Jong-chul as Kim Jong-il's successor, progress is slow. Most of what we hear now is the North Korean's dissatisfaction with Kim Jong-chul's rule. I believe it wasn't until 2009 or so when the EU changed its rules on the number of members to allow other countries to join. Additional members of the EU since then would be Switzerland, Turkey, Albania, Serbia, Croatia, Montenegro, Kosovo, Ukraine, Macedonia, Bosnia/Herzegovina, Armenia, and Liechtenstein. I feel like I am missing one, but I believe that's it. There are a number of currencies in Europe from the euro to the pound. The krone and krona (Denmark and Sweden) for example are still used. Yes, the UK is still comprised of England, Scotland, Wales, and N. Ireland. To my recollections there have been no major changes in Spain, however there were a number of terrorist attacks (bombings) in Madrid and Barcelona about six or seven years ago.
  14. Once again, just like Darby, you continue to post information to try and strengthen your case, even when I directly shot-down your case two weeks ago (which you never responded to by the way...hmmm...). L. Grummond
  15. RainManTime, Once again you prove yourself wrong! I call your bluff on your supposed 'unanswered questions' i am ignoring, but instead you ask me a question I have already answered: Here is my original post in reply to this question/concern of yours: In reply to: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Oh yes...and you have NOT answered all of my questions. Go back and read the ones I asked you about security clearances and classified information. There were questions there which you ignored. My guess is you ignored them because you could not answer them, because you really do not know all that someone who has a security clearance, and who has signed a SF 312, should know. You have violated so many DoD rules of OpSec and InfoSec, that there can only be two conclusions: (1) You are purposefully violating these rules (this option assumes you are who you say you are) (2) You are completely ignorant of DoD OpSec and InfoSec regulations (this option assumes you are not who you say you are). Guess which option I believe has the highest probability of being true? And no matter what excuses you try to make about the future, if you are part of the DoD and you are coming to this time, you are, in fact, bound by the DoD Instructions and DoD Directives in force today. I would suggest you spend some time googling DoD Instruction 5230.29 and DoD Directive 5230.9. You may just learn a thing or two about all the OpSec and InfoSec rules you are violating. RMT -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- If I have not answered some of your questions it may simply be because you have had a few 'junk' posts after which I simply skipped over a majority of. As I said before, I will be happy to answer any of your questions if you would not mind making a simple list and placing them in a post for me to respond to. I will begin by responding to the comments you have made in this post: First of all OPSEC and INFOSEC do not apply here: In fact, OPSEC is particular to information being kept from a variety of rivals or enemies. We are not in this type of situation and are not attempting to hide information in this sense. The other countries who are working on time travel technologies are not doing so in some sort of Space Race-type situation, but instead are attempting to achieve time travel via different means than our own. We are not in competition with these different countries, but have actually assisted in some parts of their development of their differing types of attempted time travel. INFOSEC on the other hand is specific to computer security. None of the information I have provided is deemed Classified within our organization, nor would I devulge any Classified information to the general public. I trust you have noticed on a handful of instances where I have been asked for this type of information within this forum I have apologized for my inability to provide it as it would be a security issue. Additionally, you mentioned DoD Instruction 5230.29 and DoD Directive 5230.9. I am well versed on my Security and Policy Procedures within the DoD. First of all, as the Head of an Agency within the DoD, I have clearance authority on the subject. Anything I have mentioned here is not sensitive to military matters or national security issues and therefore does not fall under the policies which you have stated. Furthermore, you must remember that DARPA is in fact involved directly in this technology, however only as part of the ITI. Anyone involved in the project does have opersational security guidelines set before them by the ITI and this is what we are to follow while acting as part of this international project. We have non-disclosure agreements regarding certain topics and these are topics which I have not provided information on. That being said, I must clearly state once again, that I am completely within my authority to provide any of the information I have already given and may provide henceforth. I hope that this direct response to your inquiries has answered them in a clear fashion and with no misunderstanding. So, I am still waiting on those 'unanswered questions' bewcause the single question you asked me in your reply (after my third or fourth time asking for 'unanswered questions') turned out to be one that I have already directly responded to nearly two weeks ago! Please stop trying to use instances where I have said "I have discussed this in a previous post" in response to a specific question from someone as a shield to protect you from repeating your 'unanswered questions'. The times when I have said something to the effect of "I have discussed this in a previous post" have only been when I have been asked the same exact question twice and there would be no need to answer it again when I can simply refer the person to one of my previous posts. Once again, your arguement that you "won't go back and ask the 'unanswered questions' until I go back and answer the 'I have discussed this previously' questions" is moot. Still waiting for your list! L. Grummond
  16. RainManTime, I will not waste my time in going back through your old posts to find your questions. The difference between my posts and yours are that mine are cleara and concise and half of yours are 'junk'. These supposed 'unanswered questions' of yours are the entire basis of your 'proof' that I am a hoax. If they are that important to proving your case, then I'm sure you wouldn't mind putting them into a single post so that I may reply to them directly. Otherwise, you are just wasting time. Me answering these questions should prove me either as real or a hoax right? So go ahead! Prove your point. I am calling you out right here and now. Ask me these 'unanswered questions'! I am waiting... L. Grummond
  17. RainManTime, On the contrary, I have actually explained quite a bit about the technology. Unfortunately you have apparently missed that post. One should make sure their arguement has legs to stand on before trying to make it walk! L. Grummond
  18. MIT has nothing to do with this at all as a matter of fact. I was not "distracted" nor do I have anything to be "distracted" from! Since when is correcting someone's falsifications wrong? Additionally, you say I "ignore" discussing Special Relativity? Ok? I am a bit lost here? Is there a specific question you have regarding it because I still haven't heard one from you. Actually no. There is no possibility of "errors in my story" because of the simple fact that my "story" is reality. I am no liar and I am no hoax. "So many errors"? Why don't you go right ahead and list them all in that case? You will find none. Additionally, I never once said I was "ignorant of physics" and I have answered each and every question that has been brought up to me. As far as Tether's background, surely you are aware that within any organization people who may occupy similiar positions may have different backgrounds, no? You can't be that closeminded. Also, I have already given my background information and I in fact would say that I am more than qualified for my role. Finally, I find it amusing that you only pointed out only Tether's role between 1969 to 1978. If you were to do your research you would find that in fact Tether held a number of Executive roles before he was selected as Director of DARPA a number of years later! Surely you don't think that his involvement in Systems Control Inc. would automatically render him "qualified" for the Director role do you? I can assure you that it was not his time with Systems Control Inc. that got him the Director position, but rather his high-ranking Executive experience at a number of other organizations. Contrary to your apparent belief, the role of Director is an Executive position not unlike the CEO of a major corporation. Therefore your entire arguement is left dead in the water. Sorry. L. Grummond
  19. Darby, Once again you prove me right! Just like I said in my last reply to you: you seem to have a problem comprehending a simple statement. This is obvious by your complete misunderstanding of what I had just stated. I never said you "made up Minkowski" at all! I said you created false "fcts" about myself to try and glue your arguement together. So, once again, in misunderstanding what I previously said, you continue an arguement that isn't even there. I think your speaking in that odd 5-year-old language you had going for a while truely must have affected your reading and comprehension skills! Try reading it all again... L. Grummond
  20. Actually, no...that's not a 'gotcha'. Unfortunately you and Darby seem to be on the same page...in the wrong book! Obviously you have just proved that along with Darby you have failed to correctly comprehend my previous posts. Once again, I never stated that I was a "scientist at MIT" and additionally, why would I devulge any type of information regarding the time travel technology which I have already explained is restricted? You of all people with your "arguments" (although inaccurate) about security and government guidelines should know better! :) L. Grummond
  21. Wow! I called you out and that reply is all you can say! Laughable! You won't believe the number of private messages I received for saying what I said to you and all of them loved it! Your arguements have all fallen flat and everyone sees right through them. Sorry Darby! At least you will be mentioned in my debriefing and you will probably find your name (well, the name you take on this forum at least) on an international report a number of years from now! The amount of work you have tried to put into proving me a hoax is amazing and is noted! How interesting that there are one or two people who are so adamant on this even after I have shot down each and every arguement they have launched. Moving on... L. Grummond
  22. "Say it ain't so Joe, there you go again!" You obviously failed to read my reply to you thoroughly in that you once again when you said "As a scientist you should have made the fiscal connection between your project and the Mars Program." Hmmm...I can't even bother reading any of your reply after that because all of your arguements are based on false facts you have created in your head in order to make your story plausible. Sorry, not happening. L. Grummond
  23. yeyeman9, Yes, I assume you could look at it that way, but looking even further back: wouldn't most of what is being used and 'new' in 2008 be considered simply old technology that has been 'upgraded'? Keep in mind that I have also mentioned a number of events and technologies/advancements that are just now (2024) becoming commonplace. L. Grummond
  24. My_Time, Yes, this is what I have just stated. They are able to read everything I am writing post by post. L. Grummond
  25. Once again you make up some odd reasoning why I should be aware of something I am not. As if, by being the Director of DARPA, I should, for whatever reason, be fully knowledgable of the budgets of a completely separate international coalition which I am not at all involved with in any way? Makes no sense at all Darby and therefore your arguement - once again - just doesn't hold up. You have put up a good fight in your attempt to label me a hoax I must admit, however you have done nothing more than prove to others that I am in fact the real thing because I have answered every one of your questions and proved you wrong in each of your 'gotcha!' arguements. Sorry. L. Grummond
  • Create New...