-Caveat Lector- ------- Forwarded message follows ------- Date sent: Mon, 25 Mar 2002 08:09:22 -0500 From: Charlie Plyler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: [Elfrad-Group] Riding Piggy-back on a Carrier Tone? To: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Send reply to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dear ELFRAD group, Thanks so very much for the HAARP transmission information. I reposted some messages to the on-line interactive newsletter which I coordinate for the Stop LFAS Worldwide Network. I hope that it's OK to repost from this list. In particular, I was interested in tonal carrier waves at 5.8 MHz being used and then converted to EMF? This is of interest because it may represent a technology over-lap. For years, we've made off-hand speculative comments about the possibility that one of the unstated applications of Low Frequency Active Sonar could be to piggy-back radio signals. Recently, in the last few months, the US Navy admitted that it's use of a mid- range sonar was responsible for the multiple species strandings in the Bahamas in March of 2000. (It's now believed that all the Cuvier Beaked Whales in the area were killed by that event.) Inspite of this dynamic proof of how destructive these new active sonar systems can be, the US Navy and the National Marine Fisheries Service continue to dance around the proposed five year permit for SURTASS LFA SONAR and the possibility of it's final approval. While it is NMFS's responsibility for safe-guarding marine life and enforcing both the National Environmental Protection Act and the Marine Mammal Proptection Act; NMFS is clearly reluctant to enforce those laws when it means saying "no" to the US Navy. Meanwhile, as more information has come to light, we have learned about complications which resulted in trauma, bleeding, and disorientation in marine mammals exposed to these intensive sonars. The blasts are so loud that one ship would saturate the acoustic functionability of an ocean area approximately the size of Texas. (Don't just think in terms of surface area. These are long waves and they go deep.) The Navy suggests that the sound wouldn't be all that damaging because it would only be intermittant. Much of the marine life in close proximity to the sound source would probably be destroyed. Prolonged use at a distance would result in the deafening of sensitive species throughout entire regions of the ocean. The global assault would, if approved, include deployment within 80% of all the earth's oceans. New documentation about something called "rectiified diffusion" has been produced by the Navy's own scientists. This documentation suggests that deep- diving mammals may suffer severe consequences at even minimal sound levels... much lower than the US Navy's suggest 180dB. The documentation would suggest that they Navy may be willing to kill whole areas of the ocean's marine life so as to use active sonar technologies. Alternative and more traditional sonar technologies are passive. The precautionary princible favors the use of passive sonar, rather than active sonar. When whales have died during active sonar applications, it's likely that only a portion of the population strands along a shoreline and the rest probably sink to the ocean floor unnoticed. So we have no way of knowing how many die during one active sonar deployment. Nor are we necessarily sure as to which of the active sonar technologies is most damaging to whales. Only a few species have ever been tested and then these tests simply observed immediate behaviors. We do know that SURTASS LFA is the most robust and potentially most powerful of the new blaster arrays. And even when whales stranded, the first order of business from Naval leaders was to deny that they could have been responsible. (Which is what makes the Navy's admission about the Bahama strandings so very significant!) Whales have also died in and around other known test areas where immediate strandings occurred without the Navy owning up to their contribution in causing those deaths. LFAS coincided with beaked whales stranding in the Canary Islands and the Ionean Sea. But after years of denial about these other incidents, the investigation and documentation available in the Bahamas incident is profoundly different. Thanks to the efforts of many local people, especially Ken Balcom and Diane Claridge, specimens were taken from dead whales whose ears were bleeding. Those samples were preserved and tested. Also, a video-taped fly-by of the Navy ships documented their activity in the area at the time of the strandings. The SURTASS LFA SONAR now pending potential NMFS permit approval is far more powerful than the sonar that caused whales to die in the Bahamas. So, of course, we really don't want to see that approval happen. This past week, the City of San Francisco's Commission on the Environment unanimously voted to recommend a resolution to prevent deployment of SURTASS LFA SONAR in their city. The Board of Supervisors will meet soon and will hopefully approve that resolution which was modeled after the one already approved in Hilo, Hawaii. The California Coastal Commission has demonstrated that they are unwilling to acknowledge compliance with the Navy's new sonar technology. One other state, Maine, has reversed it's compliance ruling. And Hawai'i's approval is based on some provisions which it is unlikely the Navy will be able to meet. Organizations such as the Natural Resources Defense Council have prepared statements insisting that the information previously supplied to NMFS and Congress by the US Navy is out of date and incomplete. Legally, they have said, the Navy must present the environmental information in a manner which meets a more timely and detailed standard. The Navy complains that this is an involved process which is time consuming and costly. The Navy wants the damaging technology so as to detect submarines. The irresponsible pattern of denial and cover-up suggests that the Navy is not giving much attention to the process that the law requires. Rather than to meet that challenge, the Navy now is pursuing a legal course which would make them exempt from compliance with environmental protection requirements. (This from the people who brought you Agent Orange!) Meanwhile, the Navy also insists that there will be no economic impact from the SURTASS LFA SONAR technology. No study of what this technology would do to fish populations is currently available... but the Navy continues to insist that there will be no economic impact to coastal communities. The documentation which is available would suggest otherwise. Humans are susceptible to harm. There are examples with divers being made ill. One woman who was below the horizon during a low-level test of the new sonar technology called SURTASS Low Frequency Active already filed her case in federal court. And let's talk about scaring off the fish! The applications for this technology as used by NATO continue to be different than those presented to Congress by the US Navy. One such application is called Time Reversed Acoustics. ( http://manyrooms.com/article.htm ) Another may involve the kind of piggy-back signals previously discussed. So as local governments continue to make the inquiries on how to protect America's shores from Low Frequency Active Sonar, it would be interesting to receive parallel information from the people on this list so as to discover what kind of carrier tones might be possible within the underwater applications of these new sonars. Whereupon, we could add it to the list of information omitted from the Final Environmental Impact Statement now being challenged during the approval process. Thanks. Best regards,Cheryl A. Magill Network Coordinator Stop LFAS Worldwide Network [EMAIL PROTECTED] stoplfas.org / stoplfas.com or go to http://listen.to/lfas viewpoints _______________________________________________ Elfrad-group mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://elfrad.org/mailman/listinfo/elfrad-group_elfrad.org ------- End of forwarded message ------- ------------------------ "In little more than a year we have gone from enjoying peace and the most prosperous economy in our history, to a nation plunged into war, recession and fear. This is a nation being transformed before our very eyes." http://www.truthout.com Steve Wingate, Webmaster ANOMALOUS IMAGES AND UFO FILES http://www.anomalous-images.com <A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/";>www.ctrl.org</A> DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis- directions and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at: http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html <A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html";>Archives of [EMAIL PROTECTED]</A> http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ <A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/";>ctrl</A> ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
