posted 07-03-2004 07:24 PM            

By Mitch Battros - ECTV

From: http://www.earthchangestv.com/secure/2004/article_2293.php

Jun 16, 2004, 23:48

It appears yesterday’s ECTV article on ‘false reading’ earthquakes and vast electronic interference, has prompted a response from DoD’s media department. A rather unusual announcement was released this morning, disclosing to the public for the first time, a previous top secret testing operation in the Atlantic. It is known as operation “Northern Edge”. This exercise appears to be utilizing HAARP.

Cmdr. Joe Murphy, U.S. Alaskan Command reports “a new combat system is being tested. The new testing devise is used for what is commonly known as “jamming,” the Improved Capabilities System III (ICAP III) overloads specific hostile communication bandwidths, causing users to temporarily lose service.

“Training and testing of ICAP III is a stepping-stone for the Navy,” said Chief Aviation Structural Mechanic Ron Szpynda, Air Test Evaluation (VX) 9. “This is the first time we have used this system.”

VX-9's EA-6B Prowlers are being used to test the system. The aircraft provides protection for strike aircraft, ground troops and ships, by jamming enemy radar, electronic data links and communications.

posted 07-03-2004 09:36 PM            

From: http://rense.com/general53/SHSHI.HTM

Half Past Human.com

A Little Puzzle In Logic

6-14-4

If the navies of the world were putting to sea en masse - and they are (10 carrier groups out from US alone - 93 per cent of ALL US naval ships are at sea - official stats)....

And if the Federal Reserve Bank was force-feeding liquidity into the system at rates that exceeded the post-911 period, then a few reasonably sound deductions might be made of this....

But first, some assumptions:

1) Navies put to sea when they expect severe weather.

2) It is very expensive to keep navies at sea for any length of time, and the poorer the country, the shorter the time possible.

3) Navies do *not* put to sea en masse for war, especially nuclear war (think about it, the task forces are easy to find. Lob in a nuclear warhead and, voila: no more task force (and no 'collateral
damages or radioactive real estate).

4) The Fed forcing money into the system has a short term, limited effect - likely on the order of less than 2 month's cycle time (money velocity through the system).

Therefore, our deductions might be as follows:

a) Since many of the most powerful nations have sent their naval forces to sea, then whatever the reason for it, it not likely to be a political one.

b) Because so many navies are at sea, it seems logical that the powers that be suspect something of a global dimension to occur that would adversely affect ships if there were in port. This argues for both global impact, and climatic/environmental dynamic, as no purely political/social event would affect all navies planet-wide.

c) Since navies can only mill-about so long on the water, especially en masse, the 'whatever' is a short-term expectation.

d) Since the effects of the Fed liquidity explosion are going to go through the monetary system like heroin through an addict, that is, one short term 'rush' and then withdrawal leading to very shakey behavior, the 'whatever' that the Fed is preparing for is, also likely, a short-term expectation.

Of course the definition of 'short-term' could vary, but it would seem safe to assume that the US Navy won't be at sea for months. Perhaps a good definition would be that of a month. And some sort of global navy affecting event may or may not occur.

This may suggest the Aussie Bloke stuff, but, today, a single large earthquake in Antarctica rattled the world, setting off a series of quakes along many parts of the Pacific Rim. So, if the navies of the world were expecting something to occur, and thought to be better safe than sorry, they might put,
indeed, put to sea.

Since we have two, verified, observable occurances, i.e. navies out to sea, and Fed pumping money like never before in history, we have a logic puzzle. Neither of the observable events makes sense within the context of today's world, unless there is something wicked this way coming.....or thought to be by those we pay to know.

posted 07-04-2004 10:56 PM            

Even if it is 10 battle groups, which I am not sure of, is that still 93 percent? I doubt it, but I am not Navy so cant quite verify.