Jump to content

September 2024


Lyndzee_Grummond
 Share

Recommended Posts

Pamela,

 

Next thing I expect to read is rainmantime accusing Lyndzee of threatening Darby. lol

Yes, yes. As always, we see you scolding other people for making snide remarks. But that rule never seems to apply to Perfect Pamela, does it? LOL

 

Are you living in a glass house these days, Pamela? If so, I'd put down those stones you are hurling!

 

RMT

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 724
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Actually, no...that's not a 'gotcha'. Unfortunately you and Darby seem to be on the same page...in the wrong book!

Well, I will take comfort that Einstein and the other great physicists of today are in the same book. And what books are you in? Comic books? ;) Sure sounds that way from the construct of your story.

 

Once again, I never stated that I was a "scientist at MIT"

You keep ducking, ducking, ducking. Are you going to start to quack soon? (Actually, you already ARE a quack!). :D You don't need to have been a "scientist at MIT" to understand Minkowskian spacetime. So why do you continue to be distracted by the "MIT" thing, and continue to ignore discussing something that is a well-known part of Special Relativity? Answer: You are a hoax. (Walks like a duck, quacks like a duck... hence, we shall now call you Ducky!)

 

why would I devulge any type of information regarding the time travel technology which I have already explained is restricted?

Because the general understanding of 4-D Minkowskian spacetime is most definitely NOT restricted, and any technology to "time travel" (Question: Shouldn't that really be SPACEtime travel?) would have to include a discussion of the relevant (proven) physics. Whether you came from MIT or not, to be a "co-director" of DARPA one would certainly expect you to have a VERY SOLID handle on physics... especially as it relates to any technology co-developed by DARPA! :confused:

 

You of all people with your "arguments" (although inaccurate) about security and government guidelines should know better!

So would you then mind telling us all exactly when the Theory of Special Relativity and/or the physics of Minkowskian spacetime were classified by the US Government? Had to be sometime after now (2008) because they sure aren't classified now!

 

There are so many errors you committed in constructing your story, that they are all now showing like so much Swiss cheese (hi HDRKid!). First, you were too ignorant to adopt the Many Worlds Interpretation and so your whole "your timeline is my timeline" schtick kind of fell apart. It will REALLY fall apart when/if Obama wins the election. Second, your story puts you as a "co-director" of DARPA. Hence, you cannot really claim to be ignorant of the physics, as Titor did, by claiming to have a degree in history (or was that Liberal Studies?). You are painted into quite a corner now, aren't you Lyndzee girl? :)

 

Let's just take a look at the credentials of the current DARPA director (Dr. Anthony J. Tether), shall we?

 

http://www.darpa.mil/body/tether_bio.html

 

My favorite part of his bio:

 

Prior to entering government service, he served as Executive Vice President of Systems Control Inc. from 1969 to 1978, where he applied estimation and control theory to military and commercial problems with particular concentration on development and specification of algorithms to perform real-time resource allocation and control.

Wow! A controls guy...just like me! :oops: Do you think a guy like this (indeed, ANY DARPA director) would not have at least a solid scientific understanding of Relativity? And yet you clearly show quite a bit of ignorance on this topic. So who did you sleep with to get the DARPA co-directorship job? LOL

 

RMT

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I feel I should point something out to all those who maybe have not seen what Darby did, and how Lyndzee reacted predictably to what he did. So for those who haven't seen it yet, let me point this out:

 

Once again, I never stated that I was a "scientist at MIT"

What Darby did that resulted in Ducky's continued ducking of the issue is quite sly, but most effective. What he did was to embed a non-sequitor statement (alleging that Lyndzee was a "scientist at MIT") along with a valid probe of her knowledge about modern (non-classifed) physics that would HAVE to govern her alleged TT device. A brilliant piece of intellgence work, that is, Darby! :)

 

What we have seen from Ducky is that she immediately glammed onto the non-sequitor that Darby purposefully included (because he knew she would), and continues to wish to argue that point... in the hopes that people will think that by proving this non-sequitor wrong, this will somehow cause people to forget about Darby's science probe of Ducky, or (even better) believe that because she "proved" Darby's non-sequitor to be false, that this must also render his point about Relativity as irrelevant. She can hope people will think that, but it would only be in her hopes that it would be true.

 

The longer she keeps arguing Darby's non-sequitor "MIT scientist" and ignoring a discussion of the physics of Relativity, the worse it will get for her. My suggestion to her is: Drop the MIT thing and start boning up on Relativity if you have any hope of keeping your story afloat. I know Darby well enough to know that this is just the begininning for him. There are other "bombs" he has planted along the way, and other traps you will no doubt fall into Ducky. Just like this one!

 

RMT

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pamela,

 

In reply to:

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Next thing I expect to read is rainmantime accusing Lyndzee of threatening Darby. lol

 

Yes, yes. As always, we see you scolding other people for making snide remarks. But that rule never seems to apply to Perfect Pamela, does it? LOL

 

Are you living in a glass house these days, Pamela? If so, I'd put down those stones you are hurling!

 

RMT

 

I never claimed to be perfect rainman you are assuming too much. I said your actions are ..predictable. Only plants live in glass houses rainman. I am not a plant. If I was a plant I couldn't type this message. ;) lolol

 

psst...You better be careful or you are going to end up in that report too!!

 

Then you are gonna be in trouuuuuuuble just like Darby! :)

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've given you enough information for you to address the implications of your gadget relative to Special Relativity. I didn't say Special Relativity specifically, rather, I referenced Minkowski, rotations and translations. That's where you blinked, lad. You didn't know what I was refering to. Instead, you assumed that I was simply making it up. I wasn't. It's a central part of SR.

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

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You keep ducking, ducking, ducking. Are you going to start to quack soon? (Actually, you already ARE a quack!). You don't need to have been a "scientist at MIT" to understand Minkowskian spacetime. So why do you continue to be distracted by the "MIT" thing, and continue to ignore discussing something that is a well-known part of Special Relativity? Answer: You are a hoax. (Walks like a duck, quacks like a duck... hence, we shall now call you Ducky!)

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.

 

There are so many errors you committed in constructing your story, that they are all now showing like so much Swiss cheese (hi HDRKid!). First, you were too ignorant to adopt the Many Worlds Interpretation and so your whole "your timeline is my timeline" schtick kind of fell apart. It will REALLY fall apart when/if Obama wins the election. Second, your story puts you as a "co-director" of DARPA. Hence, you cannot really claim to be ignorant of the physics, as Titor did, by claiming to have a degree in history (or was that Liberal Studies?). You are painted into quite a corner now, aren't you Lyndzee girl?

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.

 

Let's just take a look at the credentials of the current DARPA director (Dr. Anthony J. Tether), shall we?

 

http://www.darpa.mil/body/tether_bio.html

 

My favorite part of his bio:

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Prior to entering government service, he served as Executive Vice President of Systems Control Inc. from 1969 to 1978, where he applied estimation and control theory to military and commercial problems with particular concentration on development and specification of algorithms to perform real-time resource allocation and control.

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Wow! A controls guy...just like me! Do you think a guy like this (indeed, ANY DARPA director) would not have at least a solid scientific understanding of Relativity? And yet you clearly show quite a bit of ignorance on this topic. So who did you sleep with to get the DARPA co-directorship job? LOL

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

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I said your actions are ..predictable.

Not sure if you realize it, but that is exactly the point that I am making about the TT hoaxers that come here and sell their warez. They are eminently predictable in that when they can't explain the science behind their stories/TT device, the reason they invoke for not being able to tell us certain things is "because they are classified". How quaint, and convenient, and predictable.

 

RMT

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure if you realize it, but that is exactly the point that I am making about the TT hoaxers that come here and sell their warez. They are eminently predictable in that when they can't explain the science behind their stories/TT device, the reason they invoke for not being able to tell us certain things is "because they are classified". How quaint, and convenient, and predictable.

 

RMT

 

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

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lyndzee, I have some new questions for you:

 

-Are the Democrats and the Republicans still the two main evils err...I mean the two main parties in the US? Are their control of public offices at federal/state levels so overwhelming than in 2008?

 

-Has proportional representation been introduced in the House of Representatives or in any state legislature?

 

-Has any of the so-called "third parties" gained more strength?

 

-Do you have a real cure for baldness in 2024?

 

-Do you have a real cure for fatness?

 

-What's the world population?

 

-Is Taiwan still an independent country or has it been annexed by China? If annexed, was it peacefully or by war?

 

-Is China still a single-party communist country?

 

-You have been talking about South Korea so I assume that there are still two Koreas in 2024, right? Is North Korea still a hardcore communist dictatorship?

 

-How many countries comprise the European Union in 2024? (27 in 2008) What new countries will join the EU between now and 2024?

 

-Are the euro and the ruble the two remaining currencies in the European continent?

 

-Is Northern Ireland still part of the UK? What about Scotland?

 

-What about my country, Spain? Do you remember any significant event taking place there? Is it still a monarchy? Is the Basque Country still part of Spain?

 

Well, thanks in advance!

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure if you realize it, but that is exactly the point that I am making about the TT hoaxers that come here and sell their warez. They are eminently predictable in that when they can't explain the science behind their stories/TT device, the reason they invoke for not being able to tell us certain things is "because they are classified". How quaint, and convenient, and predictable.

 

Well rainman, YOU were the one that told her she should not speak of sensitive information

 

or she would break US code. Its all there posted a couple of pages back if you have forgotten.

 

According to YOU it is not quaint, convenient or predictable it is a breaking of the US code and whatever that other thingy was you said she would violate.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let us review.....Rainman's postings.....

 

9/16/08 09:31 am

 

No, I didn't think so. Let me also make you aware that I am a person with a DoD clearance above the "confidential" level. So I know many other things about security protocol that you apparantly do not (judging by your yapping on this forum).

First you accuse her of "yapping" too much on an open forum.

 

09/16/08 6:35

 

Then it is more than amusement on your end, it is also a lack of knowledge of OpSec (Operational Security). If you actually had a clearance above "Confidential" then you should not need me to "elaborate" to know that you have already broken OpSec. And you should also know that enforcement of OpSec does not necessarily have a direct relationship to the classification level of a program, even though it is true that specific OpSec techniques can and will be invoked for highly classified programs... there are still basic OpSec techniques that all field operatives abide by. And you a breaking one or more. The fact you are asking me to "elaborate" in an open forum means you are breaking two or more.

 

Again, you are implying to me that you do not understand the reason that I stated my clearance in that manner. There are two basic requirements for any classified information (do you know what they are?). You are clearly not taking into account one of them. It is not incumbent upon me to refresh you with respect to OpSec procedures here in an open forum. In fact, as a DoD contractor it is not my job AT ALL to even school you on them (it should be the opposite). However, it IS my job to report OpSec breaches wherever I may run into them. This I will do in accordance with my signed SF 312 and Title 18 of the Code of Federal Regulations. It would serve you well to review Title 18 and Executive Order 12958 again, presuming you have even read them to begin with.

Then you state she has already broke one or more of these laws with what she has already shared with you.

 

09/16/08 08:32pm

 

If you signed an SF 312 then you agreed to OpSec procedures, not to mention Title 18 of the CFR. Both the Title 18 CFR and the Executive Order I referenced are available for anyone and everyone to read on the internet. It is clear from your actions that you do not understand their ramifications with respect to what you agreed to in your SF 312. THAT is what matters here, not what others may or may not understand.

 

As an employee of DoD (esp. in such a high position as you claim), security is your job, and that includes OpSec (especially if you are a field operative). I am not telling you your job, but I am reminding you of your obligations with regard to your SF 312. Furthermore, I am reminding you of MY obligations with respect to my SF 312 agreement! Do you know what that means for my job?

 

Are you aware that I, a "lowly" DoD contractor could (and would be expected to) report security violations of someone even as high as the Joint Chiefs of Staff if I were witness to their breach of OpSec? I tend to believe you are NOT aware of this, but that would be because you are not who you say you are.

Now you warn her further saying not only is she breaking US code but also violating her SF312 by posting on here. And that you have a responsibility to report security violations.

 

Not sure if you realize it, but that is exactly the point that I am making about the TT hoaxers that come here and sell their warez. They are eminently predictable in that when they can't explain the science behind their stories/TT device, the reason they invoke for not being able to tell us certain things is "because they are classified". How quaint, and convenient, and predictable.

 

Now you are saying she is being "quaint", "convenient" and "predictable" because she will not provide you with info she considers classified. After you threw all those threats at her or "reminders" that she better not share too much. Now you are critizing her for not sharing.

 

 

 

What!!???? Are you saying you no longer care about US code and SF 312 violations?

 

 

 

What kind of logic is this? :confused:

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the contrary, I have actually explained quite a bit about the technology. Unfortunately you have apparently missed that post.

And you have apparantly not figured out that I am mimicing your style of argument, precisely. Do I really need to expose your hypocrisy? You've done it three times in the last few posts you made to me. And you haven't detected that I am doing the same thing to you. This is part of the reason why others are also questioning why you insist on propagating your hoax. But I guessed you missed that just like you missed the questions I asked that you that you have yet to answer.

 

RMT

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hint Lyndzee: I started mimicing your style with the post I am responding to with this reply. You said:

 

"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."

 

It's right there. Very clear in my previous post. I asked you to simply compile a list of your questions for me to respond to.

The reason I do not go back to my old posts and create a nice, tidy little list for you is because you refuse to do the same thing for other people when you refer them back to your prior posts. If you are too lazy to go back to my posts and find the questions I asked you, why should anyone else endeavor to be less lazy than you and dig back through your posts? It is just a sloppy technique of yours, but I am only mimicing it. You were the one who decided to employ this tack.

 

I can show you each time in the posts that follow the one I am responding to where you referred back to your own posts in responding to someone, but did not bother to quote said posts to provide evidence that you had already addressed someone's point. You've done it twice to Darby quite recently, and several times to me.

 

I can show them to you, that is, if you have not already gone back and changed your posts before the edit time expired... or did you think people were not noticing that?

 

RMT

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now you are saying she is being "quaint", "convenient" and "predictable" because she will not provide you with info she considers classified. After you threw all those threats at her or "reminders" that she better not share too much. Now you are critizing her for not sharing.

 

What!!???? Are you saying you no longer care about US code and SF 312 violations?

 

What kind of logic is this?

It is logic you clearly do not understand, for you have not grasped the point of my citations of the SF 312 and the other relevant security-related CFR. The point was that she is NOT a person who is at all familiar with security protocols and requirements of the DoD. Hence, while it may seem to you like I was "accusing" her of violating her security oath, that would presume that I beleve she actually took one and the info she shares here is "real." She has not and it is not. Her inability to answer at least two of my very specific questions on security protocol is all I needed to know she is not who she claims to be. I know because of my training in OpSec and my knowledge of what I signed-up to with my SF 312. She totally ignored my questions and has no intention to go back and bring them up...because she knows she cannot answer them. So she pretends like she answered all my questions. She did not.

 

Do you understand? (I am not holding my breath).

 

RMT

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The reason I do not go back to my old posts and create a nice, tidy little list for you is because you refuse to do the same thing for other people when you refer them back to your prior posts. If you are too lazy to go back to my posts and find the questions I asked you, why should anyone else endeavor to be less lazy than you and dig back through your posts? It is just a sloppy technique of yours, but I am only mimicing it. You were the one who decided to employ this tack.

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

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

She totally ignored my questions and has no intention to go back and bring them up...because she knows she cannot answer them. So she pretends like she answered all my questions. She did not.

 

 

 

-Rainman

 

 

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...

 

 

 

-lyndzee

 

Well, it looks to me that you can have those answers you seek.... Everyone is waiting.

 

Lets get your questions out of the way so the rest of us can have our questions answered.

 

I noticed there were some other questions people asked that got skipped because you

 

demand to be the center of attention here.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am calling you out right here and now. Ask me these 'unanswered questions'! I am waiting...

Well, you called me out too.

 

Specific questions: Why aren't you (DARPA) doing Mars missions of your own? Why do you find it difficult to travel to the future? What is there in your view of SR, considering that you have a time machine, that DARPA doesn't understand relative to the above questions involving arbitrary rotations and arbitrary translations in Minkowskian 4-space? And last, please explain the difference between traveling to the future from 2008 to 2024 as opposed to traveling from 2024 to some future time?

 

Lyn - these aren't trick questions.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lyn,

 

BTW: I think you misquoted my statement (and you did use quotation marks) when referencing it in your post to Ray. I surely never said that you were a "scientist at MIT".

 

From your 9/11/2008 post 1442 hrs.

 

I worked at the now-defunct NASA for a number of years, was a high-ranking official at Lockheed Martin, and taught (as well as graduated) from MIT.

italic added EWD

From your post on 9/26/2008 1020 hrs.

 

As a scientist, I am still awaiting proof, but as a human being, I would hope that there is something more than ourselves out there.

This what I said in my 10/2/2008 post at 1510 hrs:

 

You've also refered to yourself as a scientist who graduated from MIT.

The statement is entirely consistent with the bio that you posted on this thread. I refered to you as a scientist because you refered to yourself as a scientist. I refered to you as an MIT graduate because you refered to yourself as an MIT graduate. But there's no statement "scientist at MIT" to be found on this site using the search criteria "All Forums" and "All Posts" (all posts ever made on this site since 1999) where anyone said that other than you in your misquote and Ray's reference to the misquote.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I noticed there were some other questions people asked that got skipped because you

 

demand to be the center of attention here.

To use a paraphrase of your own statement, Pamela, do you realize how ridiculous that sounds? Mmmmph. Who is the one coming here claiming to be a TTer and who also thinks they are resistent to more-than-adequate debunking? Who's thread is this? I think that person is the one who so desperately needs to be the center of attention. LOL. You are slipping in your old age, Pamela. can't see the nose on your face, eh? LOL

 

RMT

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

 

What the hell---- is Lyns fascination with calling people 5 year olds?

 

Even after having called her out on it? and respectfully requested that she stop using that as a tactic?

 

Lyn?

 

I tell you the truth- this is the thing that will implicate her as the fraud...

 

Like a repetitive--machine answering --through a type of "answer playbook."

 

In other words- scripted responses...

 

:confused:

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will not waste my time in going back through your old posts to find your questions.

And so why, exactly, should I "waste my time" going back through your old posts to find where you claim you answered the mail on how science supports your claims?

 

The difference between my posts and yours are that mine are cleara and concise and half of yours are 'junk'.

Yes, it is quite clear to many of us that you have a high opinion of yourself. But each time you continue to make such elitist, divisive statements, your claim to be a DARPA field operative who obeys OpSec continues to fall apart. Here is a new question for you related to the ones left unanswered:

 

Question: Do you know what the rules of OpSec and procedures of InfoSec say about attracting attention to yourself?

 

These supposed 'unanswered questions' of yours are the entire basis of your 'proof' that I am a hoax.

And your supposed "prior posts" of yours are the entire basis for claiming you have already addressed issues of factual science. See how that works? Like it or not, I am in lock-step with you. Every argument you attempt to use for why you refuse to "waste your time" and go back and answer my questions becomes defused when that same argument/tactic is used against you. It is what we call a zero-sum-game you are engaged in. All you can really do to minimize your losses is ignore me. Yet you don't. ;)

 

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.

I'll make you a deal: I will certainly do that very thing once you do the same thing with respect to all your references to "I already discussed that in my prior posts." Walk your talk and I will gladly comply. Otherwise, you are nothing more than a hypocrite and it shows.

 

Otherwise, you are just wasting time.

And clearly you do not think you are wasting people's time here with your bogus claims? Nize. You really don't care about being called-out on being a hypocrite, do you?

 

I am calling you out right here and now. Ask me these 'unanswered questions'! I am waiting...

And I have likewise called you out. The question is, who will blink first? But let me give you another piece of advice: You really ought to go back and find my questions, at least so you know what they are and how they can short circuit your "prior answers". I can assure you there is a time bomb waiting to detonate embedded in those questions. I can let them lie dormant for awhile longer. I can actually afford to allow you to shoot off your mouth a bit more and it could well make their eventual detonation that much more spectacular. But only I can provide the "arming codes" that will eventually make them "go off". Really... you ignore those questions at the peril of your shoddy story.

 

RMT

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't resist...

 

Allow me to enable ONE SET of "arming circuits" for the TIME bombs I have left for Lyndzee... :)

 

Here are just a few tidbits about OpSec that all should be aware of, and consider, when reading anything Lyndzee offers up as "truth":

 

http://www.navy-parents.com/opsec.htm

 

"The Ten OPSEC Points:

 

 

 

1. Don't discuss current or future destinations or ports of call.

 

2. Don't discuss current or future operations or missions.

 

3. Don't discuss current or future dates and times of when military will be in port or conducting exercises.

 

4. Don't discuss readiness issues and numbers.

 

5. Don't discuss specific training equipment.

 

6. Don't discuss people's names and billets in conjunction with operations.

 

7. Don't speculate about current or future operations.

 

8. Don't spread rumors about current, future, or past operations or movements.

 

9. Don't assume the enemy is not trying to collect information on you; he is.

 

10. Be smart, use your head, and always think OPSEC when using email, phone, chat rooms and message boards."

 

Oh yes, I emboldened certain lines for a very good reason. ;) Lyndzee has also made a grave error in her replies by assuming that OpSec and InfoSec are only related to "classified" information. Nothing could be further from the truth...and the people who are being hoaxed here deserve to know that truth.

 

http://www.trackpads.com/forum/family-forum/442026-what-opsec-persec.html

 

"The Premise of OPSEC: The premise of OPSEC is that the accumulation of one or more elements of sensitive and/or unclassified information or data could damage national security by ultimately revealing classified information."

 

Ducky Lyndzee is quite sloppy. And folks here should be comforted in knowing that she ain't no DARPA co-director, nor even a DARPA "field agent".

 

RMT

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fortunately, I AM willing to go back to your old posts to surface problematic statements you have made:

 

In the very beginning of US research in time travel, the government setup a safe house within Arlington for potential future time travelers.

That would be a violation of OpSec Point #6. She has discussed a "billet", which is where an operative is housed. Not only that, but she divulged a general location where a "safe house" billet exists. If Ducky really were a DARPA "co-director" she would not even be discussing this "safe house" much less telling someone where it may, or may not, be.

 

Question for Ducky: When did DARPA go away from the title of "Deputy Director" and begin to employ the more confusing "Co-Director"?

 

Now excuse me while I watch the Chargers man-handle the Dolphins (I hope!).

 

RMT

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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:

 

Yes, it is quite clear to many of us that you have a high opinion of yourself. But each time you continue to make such elitist, divisive statements, your claim to be a DARPA field operative who obeys OpSec continues to fall apart. Here is a new question for you related to the ones left unanswered:

 

Question: Do you know what the rules of OpSec and procedures of InfoSec say about attracting attention to yourself?

 

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!

 

I'll make you a deal: I will certainly do that very thing once you do the same thing with respect to all your references to "I already discussed that in my prior posts." Walk your talk and I will gladly comply. Otherwise, you are nothing more than a hypocrite and it shows.

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

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...