Report | Ramola D | 8/8/2024, 8:18 pm
An amendment to the Memorandum of Understanding for TEP (Testing and Evaluation Program) Cooperation, made 7 months ago, on January 22, 2024, was published online for public perusal at State.gov today at 11:11 am Eastern Daylight Time, on 8/8/2024, a most auspicious time and date, 888, regarded as Lion’s Gate in fact, a portal to powerful Lionine futures.
[Visit the Times of India link below for fabulous suggestions from Siddarth Kumar on how best to use this period of alignment of Sirius with Earth and Sun to awaken your greatest gifts.]
Now, while this US DOD-Netherlands MOD TEP amendment extends the time period of the Understanding to 30 years, from signings in 2004, amendments in 2013, raising infinite reams of questions on what exactly is being extended, closer perusal of the documents enclosed do not reveal much, presenting instead Testing and Evaluation as if stand-alone subjects, and only a few clues sprinkled here and there as to what might be being tested and evaluated and how and involving what and whom.
Not unlike the general gist of most classified documents opened on FOIA on public disclosure, much kept hidden.
Uncovering the amendment and the MOU however is what’s key.
Looking at both the brevity of this US-Dutch Jan 22 2024 MOU and the original Feb 12 2004 and July 5 2013 MOUs (links below), it becomes apparent an expectation is being set in place, to continue a program which is being kept opaque. Can this even be possible?
The earlier document, which offers more, can be found here: https://www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/04-212-Netherlands-Defense.done_.pdf
What kinds of programs, tests, and equipment are being kept hidden by this Washington-Hague MOU from 2004 yet anticipated to be extended? Should some or all of them be terminated by either or both Participants? And who decides? Do the People decide?
Do the people of the USA and the people of the Netherlands have any clue what their DODs and MODs are up to here–on their Land and Soil, affecting their Lives?
(D for Defense needs questioning at all times; D for Defence too.)
A few discoveries of note definitely need close review–and raise questions for all.
Defense: Cooperation?
When Defense becomes Cooperation, one must ask: What are these two countries cooperating on, inside Defense–and against who?
Defense must necessarily raise spectres of Weaponry, Weapon-Wielders, Weapon Installations, Armories, Weapon-Vehicles, Weapon-Factories, Weapon-Designers, Weapon-Makers, War, Death, Injury, Disabling the Uniformed, Disfiguring & Delimbing, Mutilating and Mayhem, and so on. Collateral Damage. Civilians battered. Infrastructure destroyed. Refugees created. Orphans, widows, widowers, etc.
Weapon-testing: Now who would these weapons be tested on?
Could this MOU possibly be about Weapon-Testing? And if so, about Radio Frequency Weapons-Testing, or Neuroweapon Testing? Or both? Or Nanoweapons? Chemical weapons? Bioweapons?
How would anyone know (for sure) if the word “Weapon” is missing!
What’s mentioned inside instead are “Project Equipment Transfers,” the Reciprocal Use of Test Facilities, and visits to government establishments, agencies and laboratories and Contractor industrial facilities, also presuming therefore large Defense contractors, quite apart from Government Participants:
Is NATO Testing Projects on Military Bases and Whole-Country-Is-a-Battlefield Facilities–That is, Neighborhoods?
Perhaps these are NATO testing projects on military bases and all over the country, running on a premise of the whole world being militarized now?
NATO includes North America. And North America includes the US. Maybe the USA should be heard speaking sometime to address the question of America versus the US.
Is this how “research teams” from other countries are being used to live amongst us and prey on us, body and brain, with “non-lethal weapons” and “neuroweapons” to test?
And who benefits? Do the Mayor and District Attorney and Ward Councillors get paid kickbacks and Parachutes to permit in-house foreign D/MODs blasting in to test their “equipment”?
“Notional” tables listed in an Appendix list Flights, Fumes, Telemetry, Ground Support, Human Factors Evaluation under Direct Costs for Task Descriptions/Services, suggesting these may be in use on Test projects. Military exchange of project equipment and license to hunt and harm on foreign grounds appears to be implied.
A class of people from each country, labeled “Cooperative Project Personnel” are identified as the team of actors/researchers assigned to work in the other country’s space. Language in this Appendix (screenshot below) in fact suggests an overarching Think Tank writer, over and above each DOD, MOD and Department of State, one in fact keen on Contractors and private enterprise: Could this be the CFR, RAND, or perhaps SERCO or Vanguard?
Curious language, tons of obfuscation, and massive leeway given to new parties inside Defense.
Shall the People permit such laxity of report, or shall they Rise and demand such vague and vapid intimations of hidden activities be revealed clearly?
It’s still Lion’s Gate tonight.
Equipment Transfer, Project Equipment, Controlled Equipment
“Equipment” as a word for “Technology” has been spotted in recently declassified Air Force contract documents.
“Controlled Equipment” appears in a very revealing FEMA, DHS Grant Programs Directorate Information Bulletin, IB 407 with the date March 9, 2016, now posted in revision at FEMA as IB 407a dated January 2017, which mentions an Executive Order issued in January 2015 establishing a Prohibited Equipment List and a Controlled Equipment List, EO 13688: Federal Support for Local Law Enforcement Equipment Acquisition, all of which together sought to facilitate grants for state, local, tribal, territorial, private LEOs to acquire, use, and Transfer Controlled Equipment.
“Transfer” is well-known jargon at this point used for the process or act of moving military technology into police hands. “Technology Transfer” seems to have now become “Equipment Transfer” or “Controlled Equipment Transfer.”
Exported or exportable technology is subject to Export Control Regulations which include ITAR in the case of military items. This page at UC Davis on Controlled Technologies and the Acquisition of Equipment and Items suggests that graduate researchers can purchase research equipment and other items to facilitate their projects. Some lists of frequently controlled technologies are included–all of these matters to explore further.
The US Department of State has Science and Technology Agreements with numerous countries. The US also has Mutual Recognition Agreements with many. The US-UK Accord is posted here. BrAIn Hunting via STAs–Science and Technology Agreements- was reported here earlier at International Treaties and Agreements (excerpt below):
The mysteries of foreign researchers on foreign soils, foreign equipment and native equipment, with native bodies, native brains needing absolutely to Rise need to be further explored by all.
RELATED
