Jump to content

September 2024


Lyndzee_Grummond
 Share

Recommended Posts

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

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

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 724
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

While I wait for Lyndzee to answer my recent question, let's relive a bit of her past here:

 

Take is from me - I am the Co-Director - I knwo what I am talking about.

Yeah, take it from her... she knwo's what she is talking about! Although what she doesn't seem to know is that there is no "Co-Director" at DARPA. There are, however, Deputy Directors.

 

http://www.darpa.mil/focus2000/agenda/Biofutures.htm

 

"Dr. Jane Alexander

 

Deputy Director, Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency"

 

Someone who actually WAS an executive at DARPA would understand why the sloppy term "Co-Director" would introduce a great deal of confusion in an organization that reports to the DoD... and organization where clarity of command authority is important! :eek:

 

RMT

 

 

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!

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.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

.....

 

It doesn't matter anymore-- It appears you are going to continue using it as a tactic- whether I mention it again or not.

 

A turd by any other name will smell the same---.

 

I patiently wait for you to use it again- in reference to all things or manners of 5 year olds....and amaze us with your intelligent responses-and intuitive interpretations into child psychology.

 

and how it is so important that you seek examples in a Time Traveler forum....

 

And go out of your way to "point them out" to everyone.

 

Patiently awaiting your next example.

 

:confused:

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

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

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Someone who actually WAS an executive at DARPA would understand why the sloppy term "Co-Director" would introduce a great deal of confusion in an organization that reports to the DoD... and organization where clarity of command authority is important!

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

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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...

And you wonder how you get into trouble? You and others will note that you did not answer my question. So once again I will ask you to answer it, and not provide glib responses where you try to duck the question.

 

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

I've asked, and you have not answered. (Now is when I suppose you will "demand respect" from me and insist that I address you properly intead of by your well-deserved nickname)

 

RMT

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Why is traveling from 2024 to 2040 different than returning to 2024 from 2008?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lindzee, can you be more specific concerning life in your timeline? Has food production changed in anyway and does Monsanto still play a large part in that?

 

Is there any type of water preservation or recycling system that's different from ours? Not that we have any yet.

 

Eight billion people on earth on your time line! How does Africa deal with their population? Are there still warring tribes and factions?

 

How does China deal with their population and the large number of young males with no chance of finding wives?

 

You stated that one of the benefits of timetravel is to give our/your children a better future. Since, you put it that way, how would you improve your timeline?

 

Would you please tell me if a worm hole is the same as a black hole. Thank you

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How would you know what the regulations were for Opsec in 2024?

Always entertaining, aren't you Pamela? LOL. OpSec is not a set of "regulations". Rather, OpSec is a PROCESS, that is based on the following fundamental process steps:

 

http://www.defendamerica.mil/articles/a021202b.html

 

THE FIVE-STEP OPSEC PROCESS

 

 

 

NSDD 298 formalized OPSEC and described it as a five-step process:

 

 

 

Identification of the critical information to be protected

 

Analysis of the threats

 

Analysis of the vulnerabilities

 

Assessment of the risks

 

Application of the countermeasures

 

The ten points of OpSec cited above flow from that 5th step of the process. The liklihood that these principles will change in the span of less than 20 years is slim and none. I know you will try to argue otherwise, but the reality is those 10 points have not only been shown to be effective in practicing OpSec, but they make fundamental sense. So how do I know the "regulations" of OpSec will not change? Because if they changed such that they allowed a person who Lyndzee alleges herself to be to blab the types of things she has blabbed about here, well that would be pretty poor OpSec.

 

or how DARPA was organized in 2024?

I asked her a specific question regarding "co-director". I will await her answer. It should be fun.

 

RMT

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First of all OPSEC and INFOSEC do not apply here:

How little you know about DARPA, eh? You come on here claiming DARPA does not always work on military projects, even though it is an agency of the DoD. And now you seem to be claiming that you, in your role as a DARPA "co-director" do not have to apply the fundamental principles of security. What a laugh! Here is why you are wrong.... this is taken from the following DARPA overview which explains what DARPA is all about:

 

http://www.darpa.mil/body/pdf/DARPA2007StrategicPlanfinalMarch14.pdf

 

"DARPA's mission implies one imperative for the Agency: radical innovation for national security."

 

That comes straight from section 2.1 "Mission, Management, and Organization". So the fundamental aspect behind ANYTHING DARPA does is security. To claim that you are on a DARPA mission (whether it be via the fictional ITI or not is irrelevant), and then claim that OpSec is not required for a mission of DARPA is simply ridiculous. And once again, no amount of posturing by you (which you think you are good at...think again) is going to change this. All things that DARPA does are subject to OpSec. Guaranteed. Now, at this point, someone unfamiliar would try to claim something like the following and expect people to believe it:

 

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.

Here is the short definition of OpSec:

 

http://www.jproc.ca/crypto/terms.html

 

"OPSEC (Operations Security) - The process of denying potential adversaries any information about capabilities and/or intentions by identifying, controlling and protecting generally unclassified evidence of the planning and execution of sensitive activities."

 

And the reason you ARE in this situation (despite your hoax claims that you are not) is directly related to the scientific facts Darby has tried to get you to address...but which you continue to duck. ANY capability to do what you claim to have done (travel through time...actually spacetime) would be of an enormous military advantage, not ONLY because you can travel through "time", but because you can also travel through SPACE. But beyond that, not only is such a capability an immense military advantage, even the KNOWLEDGE of having that capability would be a large advantage. You will claim otherwise (and it is silly to even consider what you are saying as true), but the reality is that an agency of the US DoD is not about to engage in ANY cooperative activities with any of its allies without their being STRICT OpSec applied to any such collaboration. This would be the case even for an evolutionary advance in some sort of conventional defense capability (such as stealth aircraft, for one example). But for something as REVOLUTIONARY as (space)time travel....well, that is just too big of a nut to be cracked for the US to be so open about it, and even the Euros and Japanese are not that stupid!

 

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!

Apparantly, you think that "answering" with a load of patent bullshit is really answering it? The premise of your answer where you may think you "shot me down" is totally ridiculous. But in the interest of fairness, allow me to quote at least TWO of the questions I asked that remain unanswered:

 

RMT Wrote: Two questions for you: (1) Are you aware of the words "can neither confirm nor deny" as used with regard to ANY classified portion of ANY project? (2) Are you aware of the specific reason I am bringing this issue up? (Read that several times...I am not asking for generalities)

Now, Lyndzee will try to claim that she answered them. She did not. What she did was give me exactly what I did NOT want, which was generalities. For the record, here was her (non)response:

 

Lyndzee wrote: The simple mention of any type of "Can neither confirm or deny"-type policy simply goes back to my previous reply to you. Once again, ITI and it's time travel project is not anywhere close to what the Manhattan Project or any type of "weapons race".

She didn't answer either question. She may think she did, but what she did was duck them. There are still others left unanswered, but this will do for now. So do you plan to answer these questions (along with my question about "co-director")? The answer to #2 should be really good...if you answer it, rather than giving more generalities! :mad:

 

RMT

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alas... it is clear that I am certainly not a "time traveler from the future"...not even the immediate future:

 

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

:cry: Pro football seems to be a lost art out here on the west coast. I gave up on the Raiders and Forty-Niners years ago. But now it looks like I can't even count on the Chargers to give me some California pride!

 

RMT

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In reply to:

 

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

 

First of all OPSEC and INFOSEC do not apply here:

 

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

 

How little you know about DARPA, eh? You come on here claiming DARPA does not always work on military projects, even though it is an agency of the DoD. And now you seem to be claiming that you, in your role as a DARPA "co-director" do not have to apply the fundamental principles of security. What a laugh!

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'.

 

That comes straight from section 2.1 "Mission, Management, and Organization". So the fundamental aspect behind ANYTHING DARPA does is security. To claim that you are on a DARPA mission (whether it be via the fictional ITI or not is irrelevant), and then claim that OpSec is not required for a mission of DARPA is simply ridiculous. And once again, no amount of posturing by you (which you think you are good at...think again) is going to change this. All things that DARPA does are subject to OpSec. Guaranteed. Now, at this point, someone unfamiliar would try to claim something like the following and expect people to believe it:

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

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Thank you. Now that wasn't all that hard after all, was it.

 

The question still remains as to why DARPA et al aren't working on space missions. The reference to SR involves the Lorentz transformations, gravity notwithstanding (GR). The Lorentz transformation says explicitly that if you have a time machine you have a space machine. Why didn't anyone figure that out instantly? It's not as if it hasn't been in the literature of SR for a very long time.

 

And why does the project find travel to the future difficult if the gadget has the ability to travel to the relative future, 2024, from 2008?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

L

 

L,

 

So you are telling us that these posts are here now, but 'disappear' until 2024 when your team see them 'appear from nowhere' on a server. Surely the fact that you have written the posts now means they exist now, tomorrow, next week, next year, and in 2024?

 

M_T

 

My_Time,

 

Yes, this is what I have just stated. They are able to read everything I am writing post by post.

 

L. Grummond

Trying to keep this fairly simple, Please explain what happens to the posts between now and 2024 . The fact is that this thread exists in 2008, it will exist (barring the end of the world described elsewhere on this site (HDR and friends!!))every year up to 2024 and beyond. So, how can you have not seen the thread before you left 2024???

 

There are 2 questions above, I have highlighted them in bold so that they are easy to identify, when answering I trust you will remember:

 

Adam,

 

All of the history of your time is mine.

 

L. Grummond

and

 

Designer,

 

In our previous two travels, we found that the temporal divergence was nonexistent. Of course, in our previous missions, we only observed and travled back a shorter period of time. Even then, the result was no divergence even at the quantum level. Therefore, we assume that in our third travel the result will be the same (even though the amount of time traveled is greater). We estimate that if there were to be a divergence, based on what we know from previous travels, it would be <0.001. However, once again, we theorize that the divergence is 0.

These posts suggest that our history is your history and our future is also your history. Is this true?

 

That's 3 questions

 

I look forward to your response :)

 

M_T

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lyndzee,I have some questions for you:

 

-8 Bilions in 2024?? Wow, that's a lot of people! You are growing faster than expected by the UN. Isn't overpopulation a big topic in your time? How are you going to deal with it?

 

-What can you tell us about the ITER? Is it finished? Any news about nuclear fusion?

 

-What is the main video storage format in 2024? In 2008 we have the newest Blu-ray Discs, is the BD still in the stores? Additionally, they are now working in a new format called Holographic Versatile Disc (HVD), will it be the replacement of the BDs?

 

-How is the home video industry in 2024? In other words, what do you do when you want to watch a movie at home? (I mean, apart from the TV channels)

 

-Do you have physical videoclubs in 2024 yet?

 

-Do you have physical bookstores yet in 2024? If so, Has printing on demand at the point of sale became the usual form of purchasing a book?

 

-What about the old dream of "flying cars"? I know you have already answered a couple of posters with a laconic "No flying cars", but came on Lyndzee, even in 2008 there are a number of companies working in developing it, so please, make my day and tell us good news about it. Any prototype in use? Not even for the rich people or for the police or flying ambulances? Whatever additional information will be appreciated. :)

 

-One more question about Spain, do you remember if the basque terrorist organization ETA is still active?

 

Thanks in advance!

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are becoming terribly boring, Ducky.

 

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?

Because it is relevant. I realize that concept is lost on you. The point is, everything and anything that DARPA does is about security, even for those projects and/or tasks that only appear to peripherally not be about the military.

 

You have clearly not done your research on DARPA have you?

Nice posing, but clearly we have seen (and shall see) that it is YOU who have not done your research. In fact, I have been working with DARPA over the past two years on the Oblique Flying Wing program (google it). I am quite familiar with DARPA. Unlike you.

 

I have already mentioned that DARPA is not solely involved in military projects.

This is called "deflection". You are answering something I never challenged you on. Rather, what you should be trying to argue is the point I made that you did not touch (and has little to do with what you did address). Please falsify this statement I made:

 

RMT Wrote: "All things that DARPA does are subject to OpSec. Guaranteed."

 

And BTW "falsify" means something other than telling us what you think.

 

Yet again, your arguement lies dead in the water. Sorry.

No, it is I am the one who is sorry. Sorry to have to inform you that just because you say something does not make it true. In fact, it is patently and demonstrably false. As we shall see.

 

Still waiting on those questions by the way...

See my post above. I have now presented them for a second time and still you will not touch them. I suppose you now want me to provide the link to the post above in which I quoted myself. Not gonna happen. For what we are now seeing is even more pathetic...I even take your bait, and requote my questions, and still you ignore them. And you think people are going to trust you when they see you avoiding questions? It is to laugh. (And oh yes... I have only presented TWO of the unanswered questions... there are more waiting for you, and yes, they are "time bombs" ticking away)

 

It never did do away with Deputy Director. This is just something you assumed.

Now how did I know you would ONLY address that part, and totally ignore the more pertinent part? I am sure you know what I was asking about, and I purposefully worded my question as I did because I knew you would ignore the salient part. So now you leave me no other choice.... Here is a link to the DARPA website, with lists of personnel and their titles in the various DARPA offices:

 

http://dtsn.darpa.mil/webrequest/contact_selection.asp

 

Now...what I would like you to do is please show me exactly where there is a single person with the title "co-director" anywhere in these lists. And then go ahead and try to explain to everyone why you have a DARPA title which does not appear at DARPA nor is it used in ANY branch of the DoD (for a very good reason). And if you say "we started using co-director in the future" we will all have a nice, deep, gut-wrenching laugh. Well, maybe not Pamela... but there is a reason why she would not, and I won't bore you with the reason why...you would only have your feelings hurt again.

 

RMT

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's Review

 

Hey Darby,

 

Because you and I both know that analysts work in pairs, I figured I would go through a brief summary review of our OETWO'er. Please tell me if you think I have anything wrong in my analysis. We start with her first post, and I will provide select quotes as she proceeded:

 

Hello. My name is Lyndzee Grummond. I am a citizen of the State of Virginia and government employee working in the Pentagon in the year 2024.

She is a government employee, working in the Pentagon, and yet somehow she wishes people to believe that she is also working for/under some fictional ITI in cooperation with Europe and Japan. At the same time she wants people to believe she is either exempt from, or only partially bound by security agreements (and by partially-bound it is clear she makes up her own rules of security since she has exhibited violation of common security processes).

 

I will try my best to answer your questions in full and in detail. Unfortunately, I am unable to give you great specifics regarding the technology with which we are able to travel because it is a security issue.

In this quote, from her second post, she admits that "great specifics" regarding the technology represent a "security issue." Yet later in her arguments here, now she is trying to claim that "OPSEC and INFOSEC do not apply here." Interesting, yes? She has security issues that prevent her from telling us "some things", but amazingly OpSec and InfoSec do not apply here. How do you read that, Darby? We continue with her words from her second post:

 

I can tell you that to this point there have been great strides in time travel technology, however because of the potential negatives in obtaining it, it is kept as confidential as possible.

OK. Well if we are to keep it "as confidential as possible", then this would certainly imply TOP SECRET, as a minimum. There may be (and likely would be) additional security classifications attached to this that would modify a TOP SECRET classification rating. So here we see a CLEAR VIOLATION of the "neither confirm nor deny" rule, which even applies to information below TOP SECRET. Again, Darby, do you find an error in my analysis?

 

Also, I can reveal that the technology we are currently using is a joint effort of the United States, the EU and Japan.

Once again, here we see a clear violation of security rules in mentioning allied countries that are involved with technology that she, herself, has said has a "security issue" and that is "kept as confidential as possible" (TOP SECRET). If my analysis is correct (again, I am asking you to check me Darby), then we should understand why I made the statement that if she really was who she claimed she was, that I would be bound to report her actions to the DoD. Of course, if I can detect that she is NOT who she claims she is, then all I would have to do is report her as impersonating a government employee. Right? We continue:

 

Regarding my background, I am one of two "Co-Directors" of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency under the Department of Defense.

She claims to be a "Co-Director" of DARPA even though such a title does not exist, and we understand why "co-anything" titles are troublesome in a military agency. Now she does not identify at what level she is "Co-Director", but there is certainly no "Co-Director" nor even a "Co-Deputy Director".

 

Once again, my mission is here is to observe and to collect some information which I cannot go into further detail on other than to say it is regarding a foreign country.

OpSec violation.

 

As of now there are only two "time machines" in the world. One is located in Virginia and the other is located in Brussels.

Again, OpSec violation. She clearly told us there are security issues, and it is kept "as confidential as possible", but then she reveals locations where equipment is kept.

 

The creation of the organization was led by the United States, followed by the joining of Japan and the European Union (under the directive of the UK, France, Switzerland, Belgium and Germany).

Clearly, if the USA leads a technologica development that involves its own DoD interacting with other countries, then OpSec is required.

 

I apologize, but I am unable to post pictures of any type. This type of interaction has not been cleared by the ITI.

Here we see a statement from her that, for anyone who understand the DoD and how it applies security, clearly shows us that OpSec processes are indeed being applied to her project. If, as she claimed, that "OpSec does not apply here" then there would be no OpSec evaluation that would have lead to identifying this "interaction" as critical information.

 

I wouldn't say that I "do not answer" to the Defense Secretary, I do report to him

Here she appears to clarify that her position could not be a "Co-Deputy Director" for such a person (if the title existed, which it does not) would only report to the DARPA Director. Hence, she must be claiming to be a "Co-Director" with someone else that would both report to the Secretary of Defense. Interesting, don't you think, how basic command principles must have changed to allow such sloppy reporting hierarchies... in the DoD of all places?

 

What do you think so far, Darby?

 

RMT

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...