September 2024

[Kanigo2]

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...



/ttiforum/images/graemlins/confused.gif

 

[RainmanTime]

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:

<font color="red"> Question: Do you know what the rules of OpSec and procedures of InfoSec say about attracting attention to yourself? [/COLOR]

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

 

[RainmanTime]

I can't resist...

Allow me to enable ONE SET of "arming circuits" for the TIME bombs I have left for Lyndzee... /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif

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

<font color="red"> "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." [/COLOR]

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

<font color="blue"> "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." [/COLOR]

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

 

[RainmanTime]

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.

<font color="red"> Question for Ducky: When did DARPA go away from the title of "Deputy Director" and begin to employ the more confusing "Co-Director"? [/COLOR]

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

 

[Lyndzee_Grummond]

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

 

[Lyndzee_Grummond]

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

 

[RainmanTime]

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

<font color="red"> "Dr. Jane Alexander
Deputy Director, Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency" [/COLOR]

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

 

[Lyndzee_Grummond]

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.

 

[Lyndzee_Grummond]

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

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

 

[Lyndzee_Grummond]

Darby,

This is your statement:

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

I may have taken a literal meaning on that, and if so, I apologize for my misreading. I understand what you mean.

L. Grummond

 

[Kanigo2]

.....

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.



/ttiforum/images/graemlins/confused.gif

 

[Lyndzee_Grummond]

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

 

[Lyndzee_Grummond]

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

 

[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...

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.

<font color="red"> Question for Ducky: When did DARPA go away from the title of "Deputy Director" and begin to employ the more confusing "Co-Director"? [/COLOR]

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

 

[Florida_Jim]

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?

 

[pamela]

How would you know what the regulations were for Opsec in 2024? or how DARPA was organized in 2024?

May I quote YOU as well? lol

 

[CatJammin]

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

 

[Warrior381]

I just wonder is the HOLY BIBLE true in your timeline and also is NEW WORLD ORDER like the NORTH AMERCICA UNION form or not?? write back..

 

[RainmanTime]

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

<font color="red"> 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 [/COLOR]

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

 

[RainmanTime]

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

<font color="red"> "DARPA’s mission implies one imperative for the Agency: radical innovation for national security." [/COLOR]

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

<font color="red"> "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." [/COLOR]

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! /ttiforum/images/graemlins/mad.gif

RMT