# John Quinn
vs HAARP

## Correspondence with
the US Navy about the
Controversial HAARP Fax

John Quinn's E-mail: j9aq9@aol.com

### Contents

> Pentagon Caught Lying!!--Spread The Word
> Pentagon Caught In Blatant Lie!! Response to HAARP Document
> John Quinn to the US Navy Requesting a Comment on the HAARP Fax
> The Controversial Fax
> Response to John Quinn from Alan Goldstein
> Response to Alan Goldstein from John Quinn

### Pentagon Caught Lying!!--Spread The Word

Dear Recipients:

Please post, forward, reprint, and otherwise distribute and publicize the item(s) just emailed you; concerning a direct request to the Navy for an official response to the "HAARP document" (which alludes to a major failure of a particle accelerator during an obviously top secret HAARP operation, resulting in a dimensional rift), and an official response from a Navy spokesperson at the Pentagon.

Apparently due to The Navy being caught "off guard", they issued a classically misleading, disinformative "response" which in fact made at least one obvious, demonstrably FALSE statement, in a ludicrous, blatant attempt to cut off any serious inquiry into the document in question and the major implications thereof.

Also thoroughly demeaned in the official by inference was the U.S. Constitution and my invoking same in my request for comment from the Navy.

I heartily encourage all recipients to help "blow the whistle" here and bring this outrageous example of official arrogance, bad faith, malfeasance and LYING (not to mention rudeness) to mass public awareness.

Best Wishes,

John Quinn

Contents

### Pentagon Caught In Blatant Lie!!
Response to HAARP Document

Recipients:

At Preston Nichols' suggestion, I emailed The Navy with a request for a comment on the text of the faxed document regarding a major blowout in a recent HAARP operation involving particle accelerators, resulting in the creation of an interdimensional/time rift. (A full verbatim reprint of the document was included.)

As I pointed out in my recent article on HAARP, there was one obvious discrepancy in the faxed document concerning the zip code--it correlated to Fort Myers and not Washington D.C. as the document stated; however at 1455 Overlook Ave., in Fort Myers is a vast multi governmental complex which houses, among other things, National Security Agency offices.

Interestingly enough at 4555 Overlook Ave. (SW) in Washington D.C. is the Naval Research Laboratory, a large facility with a staff of over 4000 people, which is in fact the headquarters of the Navy's HAARP operations.

The discrepancy regarding the address as well as the April 1 date on the document could provide ample wiggle room for those involved or knowledgeable to discredit the document.

However in a rare public display of agitation, foolishness, confusion or ineptness, a Pentagon spokesman today issued a statement commenting on the HAARP document in question; a response notable indeed for being a complete, total and what's more, unnecessary lie.

Rather than addressing any of the points I raised in my request, nor any of the elements of the faxed document, even the potentially questionable ones, a Navy spokesman chose instead to attempt to completely discredit the document (and myself) and derail any serious inquiry by making a reply which is in one instance at least blatantly and demonstrably untrue.

In an email to me dated 5/4/98 1:53:27 PM, Alan Goldstein, Director of Technology Integration at the Navy Office of Information, The Pentagon - Washington, D.C. wrote: " ...There is not any Admiral Falvey nor is there any Overlook Avenue in Washington, D.C".

As shown, this statement is a total, complete and utter lie. As a Naval employee at the Pentagon, I find it impossible to believe that he is not aware of the fact that at 4555 Overlook Ave. SW in Washington D.C. is the Naval Research Lab, the official home of HAARP operations.

Busted! The facts speak for themselves.

Perhaps this blatant lie was intended by it's blatancy to show indicate that the HAARP document is essentially valid; more likely it's an indication of a hasty, off-balance response to an issue which would seem to have caused some concern.

Firstly, if the document and my letter were just childish gibberish, why bother to respond at all? And if responding, and if the faxed HAARP document is unquestionably worthless nonsense, why not prove or indicate it as such with solid, valid statements? Instead, (to seriously mix my metaphors), they go off totally half-cocked, shooting from the hip and end up putting their foot firmly and deeply in their big mouth. Give them a little rope and what do you know--they really hang themselves on this one!

It is fair to say that to some extent such a blatant, almost absurd lie of this magnitude from a Pentagon official on the HAARP document can ONLY be seen as bolstering by default the validity of the document in question.

Interesting as well is that this individual seems to imply that my invoking the U.S. Constitution amounted to more "childish gibberish". I guess we know which "side" he's on, and it isn't OURS!

I include below my request to the Navy for a comment on the HAARP fax, the Navy's repsonse, and my reply to their lie.

Best Wishes,

John Quinn

Contents

### John Quinn to the US Navy
Requesting a Comment on the HAARP Fax

To Whom This May Concern:

We are seeking a statement from Admiral Falvey or a direct associate, colleague or superior, pertaining to the fax received in early April 1998 and reprinted verbatim below.

This document and much of the information within it could most likely ONLY have originated from within the intelligence arm of the U. S. Navy or other intelligence/military group, due to the tremendous amount of classified information in the document, as well as the inexplicable way it was received. Additionally, according to the recipient, the document was produced using a version of Adobe PageMaker which is only available to government. It was NOT produced using the commercially available version of this software.

Granted a skilled and knowledgeable hoaxer could conceivably have enough knowledge of internal military security codes, routing information, internal directives and classified projects to fake the main body of this document. However, there are some significant points which argue rather strongly AGAINST it being an outright hoax. When the fax was received caller ID was diabled and other systems which identify the originating location of fax transmissions were disbaled. The recipient's digital cellphone, which can access up to 12 different networks, locked into one particular network at the very time the fax was received, and for days stayed locked on this network. Also, his beeper can either be on a nationwide or worldwide network; it had been on the nationwide network, and at the time the fax came in switched to the worldwide network, and remained locked onto that network for a number of days. An associate's cellphone can also utilize a number of different networks, yet beginning at the time the fax was received, he was only able access the Milcell (military) network, and couldn’t access any other for ten days. These kinds of things are much harder for some hoaxer to implement than the document itself.

This is without any doubt some kind of evidence here; either evidence of deliberate official disinformation, or (somewhat muddied) evidence of a yet another highly questionable covert program being operated under cover of the officially acknowledged HAARP project.

As American citizens with all rights and protections as afforded by our Constitution, we expect forthwith a statement from Admiral Falvey or another of equal or greater rank regarding the information relayed in this fax.

John Quinn

j9aq9@aol.com

Contents

### The Controversial Fax

N.U.S.C./N.U.M.A. J.C.S.
1455 Overlook Ave,
Washington, D.C. 33902
Office of The Director of Security

01 April 1998

To All Security Operatives, Sector EC/NE/48+I

It has been confirmed as of this date, that a failure of the H.A.A.R.P. 15-3 Proteus Unit at Ascension Island U.K. had lost it's targeting control during it's first operational trial. The accelerator was damaged at shutdown, and will not be operational until 12 June at the earliest. This failure went undetected for approximately 17 minutes, and appears to have caused another series of dimensional rifts along the East coast of the U.S. and Southwest Africa. These dimensional rifts are x- dimensional and have a time frame of -100 million B.C. plus or minus about 20 million years.

As was the case in 1995, several predatory reptillian animals have entered our y-dimension and are as this is written, freely roaming in the Southern New York region, Northern Pennsylvania, West Virginia and a possible sighting ocurred this morning at 2:34 hours at Norfolk N.A.S. 150 meters off the beach.

All operatives are officially at level 4 alert, and are to be ready to go on 60 minute notice. (DOOTP) article 15-1 through 17-4 with all addendums are to apply.

Weapons are to be available at all times, .40 and .50 caliber minimum, with FMJ and EHP rounds only, minimum handgun to be carried .357 MAG/EHP.

THIS DOCUMENT IS EYES ONLY, DESTROY AFTER READING

Director of Field Operations,
Adm. Raymond D. Falvey III

CC: DCM/NOS/USAF/DOD/SS/QCD=Adjutant Generals Office, Pent. R-6-106/9c
All Pathway Field Officers/Terminators(orders are terminate NOSAVE)

Contents

### Response to John Quinn from Alan Goldstein

Mr. Quinn,

The "message" you have forwarded is simply childish gibberish. There are many indications of this, not the least of which is there is not any Admiral Falvey nor is there any Overlook Avenue in Washington, D.C.

Furthermore, the tone and wording of your e-mail suggests it to be of the same ilk. However, if you wish to pursue this, it is recommended you turn these "documents" over to the local office of the FBI.

Your e-mail and this response will remain on file.

Alan Goldstein
Director, Technology Integration
Navy Office of Information
The Pentagon - Washington, D.C.

Contents

### Response to Alan Goldstein from John Quinn

Alan Goldstein
Director, Technology Integration
Navy Office of Information
The Pentagon - Washington, D.C.

Dear Mr. Goldstein:

Firstly, I am not in any personal possession of this faxed document and thus have nothing to "turn over" to anyone. I transcribed the text verbatim from a faxed copy of the faxed "original". I am concerned about the operations referred to in this document.

In your email to me dated 5/4/98 1:53:27 PM, you wrote: " ...There is not any Admiral Falvey nor is there any Overlook Avenue in Washington, D.C".

You chose not to respond to any of the pertinent points raised in my email, nor any of the significant elements of the document in question. Instead you chose to try to completely discredit the document (and myself) by making a reply which is one instance at least blatantly and demonstrably false.

As a Naval employee at the Pentagon, I find it impossible to believe that you are NOT aware of the fact that not only IS there an Overlook Ave. in Washington D.C.; but at 4555 Overlook Ave. SW is the Naval Research Laboratory, the center (as far as I know) of the Navy's HAARP efforts (as in: askhaarp @itd.nrl.navy.mil); the phone number, in case you didn't know--202.767.3426. I have to wonder why, if this "document" is childish gibberish, it seems you have responded in this manner. Obviously there are other points in the document which could be questioned, yet instead you issued a statement which was apparently an attempt to deflect any serious consideration of or questions about the document in question; you attempted to do by making an obviously untrue staement as I've shown. What is your comment on this? Also, in your email you also said that the "tone" of my email indicated it to be childish gibberish as well.

Among other things my email said, "As American citizens with all rights and protections as afforded by our Constitution, we expect forthwith a statement from Admiral Falvey or another of equal or greater rank regarding the information relayed in this fax."

Is that what you would consider "childish gibberish? Do you believe that adhering to and abiding by the U.S.Constitution is childish and that advocating such amounts to "gibberish"? I find this hasty, untruthful, illconceived, and apparently agitated response from The Navy to be of interest. Also, it would lead one to think that the main body of the document in question could be valid.

Thanks and have a nice day,

John Quinn

Contents