tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7875069982976812251.post2626485446177214184..comments2023-10-17T04:51:08.765-10:00Comments on KauaiEclectic: Musings: On the DefenseJoan Conrowhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00172330100788007499noreply@blogger.comBlogger12125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7875069982976812251.post-64737545827497015872009-03-29T22:21:00.000-10:002009-03-29T22:21:00.000-10:00Well, I think at least we know that Anon March 29,...Well, I think at least we know that Anon March 29, 2009 8:46 AM is not Dr. Berg; but, Anon may be the one responsible for the fish kill. Because, living in the proximity, as opposed to a couple hundred million other Americans, is pretty good as circumstantial evidence goes.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7875069982976812251.post-6219673805960141442009-03-29T17:01:00.000-10:002009-03-29T17:01:00.000-10:00Anyone know if the measly $15,000 is available for...Anyone know if the measly $15,000 is available for the biologists yet?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7875069982976812251.post-78493417304061097862009-03-29T16:59:00.000-10:002009-03-29T16:59:00.000-10:00March 29, 2009 1:34 PMoh brotherweʻre not any wher...March 29, 2009 1:34 PM<BR/><BR/>oh brother<BR/><BR/>weʻre not any where near a court room yet.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7875069982976812251.post-19463719604601917382009-03-29T14:23:00.000-10:002009-03-29T14:23:00.000-10:00Every good case starts with a hypothesis. Then you...Every good case starts with a hypothesis. Then you test the hypothesis. Sometimes it's not possible to learn more, sometimes it is, and that's how conclusions are reached.<BR/><BR/>The military's own statement added nothing to the test.Larryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06742098296808508617noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7875069982976812251.post-69964011975621824322009-03-29T13:34:00.000-10:002009-03-29T13:34:00.000-10:00"circumstantial evidence" "everything obvious has ..."circumstantial evidence" <BR/><BR/>"everything obvious has been ruled out"<BR/><BR/>That doesn't cut it with me. Way too much room for "reasonable doubt", which I do believe in.<BR/><BR/>If you can't connect A to B directly beyond a shadow of reasonable doubt, then you don't have a case...just a hypothesis.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7875069982976812251.post-12235425822154024612009-03-29T08:46:00.000-10:002009-03-29T08:46:00.000-10:00To Anon. March 28, 2009 10:13 PM:There is more tha...To Anon. March 28, 2009 10:13 PM:<BR/><BR/>There is more than ʻnothingʻ. There is actually some very indicting circumstantial evidence to start with. And, the fact that everything obvious has been ruled out...all that remains is once again the military.<BR/>Itʻs a pattern, they deny when something happens, until they are cornered.<BR/><BR/>At least Carl Berg uses his real name.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7875069982976812251.post-4203584299787156612009-03-28T22:13:00.000-10:002009-03-28T22:13:00.000-10:00You're not paying attention.Right now you have not...You're not paying attention.<BR/><BR/>Right now you have nothing.<BR/><BR/>Claiming you have something that doesn't yet exist is worse than nothing because it's a distraction that's easily disproved and everything else will likewise be disbelieved.<BR/><BR/>When you have nothing, you must be vague with your charges; like the very unprofessional comments by Dr. Berg. Of course, when there's a cause that must be won, there is no such thing as being unprofessional.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7875069982976812251.post-3882777839587129202009-03-28T16:39:00.000-10:002009-03-28T16:39:00.000-10:00"What's the difference whether one calls it an "ex..."What's the difference whether one calls it an "explosion" or super cavitation jet propulsion?"<BR/><BR/>Plausible deniability.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7875069982976812251.post-27098357621892381552009-03-27T22:22:00.000-10:002009-03-27T22:22:00.000-10:00This is really exciting, except:No US supercavitat...This is really exciting, except:<BR/><BR/>No US supercavitation vessels or torpedos yet exist. General Dynamics and Northrop Grumman are still in phase one which is investigating the stable cavity generation, using water tunnels. Phase two will further develop the system itself and probably eliminate one of the companies now involved. Not until Phase three, a few years from now, will scale models even be designed; let alone built.<BR/>This doesn't rule out DARPA, which has many, many projects; but, you really have to want to believe in the supercavitation theory for it to "fly."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7875069982976812251.post-22937294156898244452009-03-27T19:58:00.000-10:002009-03-27T19:58:00.000-10:00Joan,Also, per Lee Tepley's research, DARPA might ...Joan,<BR/><BR/>Also, per Lee Tepley's research, DARPA might be using words to the effect that there were no "explosions" as opposed to experimental jet propulsion under the water with a super cavitation submarine experiment. What's the difference whether one calls it an "explosion" or super cavitation jet propulsion?<BR/><BR/>BradMauibradhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16759237357642699345noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7875069982976812251.post-56283447498475635192009-03-27T17:26:00.000-10:002009-03-27T17:26:00.000-10:00"Normal and within the scope of our EIS".....Which..."Normal and within the scope of our EIS".....Which really holds no weight of accountability.<BR/><BR/>Please read: the EPA's letter addressed to Tom Clements in response to the Final EIS dated June 10th, 2008. <BR/><BR/>http://www.epa.gov/region09/nepa/letters/HawaiiRangeComplexFEIS.pdf<BR/><BR/>From the letter.....<BR/>Navy's response to EPA's suggestion of precaution using MFA sonar: "not mandated to alleviate all risk to marine mammals."<BR/><BR/>EPA's findings in regards to protecting sea life.......<BR/>"limited data", "sparse data", conclusions without basis", "exceedingly limited data"<BR/>"data poor environment","conclusions appear unsupported"<BR/><BR/>EPA's findings in regards to polluting waters drew Navy's response, "...mitigation measures are not necessary because the impacts are not significant".<BR/><BR/>The EPA's response to depleted uranium..."our comment regarding depleted uranium was not addressed".<BR/><BR/>...the Navy can do a lot of damage within the scope of the EIS.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7875069982976812251.post-64893865459958886232009-03-27T12:51:00.000-10:002009-03-27T12:51:00.000-10:00Iʻm sorry but the militaryʻs word doesnʻt cut it. ...Iʻm sorry but the militaryʻs word doesnʻt cut it. Especially the yes man Clements. Thatʻs not how things are determined in this world.<BR/><BR/>The way it stands now, for myself (a member of the public), the onus ended up on DARPA and military...and itʻs still there.<BR/><BR/>Has the state forked over the $15,000 needed for the additional tests yet?<BR/><BR/>If not, what is their problem?<BR/><BR/>This is serious. Iʻd say start getting the lawyers lined up. That should open some DARPA doors and state too if they are complicit in a cover-up or shielding.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com