Britains GPS co-ordinates pictures?

Just out of curiosity, a question regarding the picture of the heli crewman holding the GPS system showing the co-ordinates above the vessel below.



Is it normal practice for crew members to take pictures of thier GPS systems showing co-ordinates every time a ship is boarded? Was this taken at the time of the arrests or was this taken after the event to just prove where the vessel was?

CX.

It was taken afterwards, for the MoD briefing yesterday - I imagine this is pretty much the only way to show the coordinates to the world without presenting evidence which may compromise the Royal Navy's GPS systems.

Row row, row your boat
I really don't know how true this information is, but for what it's worth.

Brits in the Gulf and a Doctored British Map? - UPDATED

www.wakeupfromyourslumber.com...

Former British Ambassador Craig Murray is now challenging the legitimacy of the map just published by the British government in the current dispute with Iran over those 15 captured British sailors and marines.

"Fake Maritime Boundaries"

Snip
But there are two colossal problems.

"A) The Iran/Iraq maritime boundary shown on the British government map does not exist. It has been drawn up by the British Government. Only Iraq and Iran can agree their bilateral boundary, and they never have done this in the Gulf, only inside the Shatt because there it is the land border too. This published boundary is a fake with no legal force.

"B) Accepting the British coordinates for the position of both HMS Cornwall and the incident, both were closer to Iranian land than Iraqi land. Go on, print out the map and measure it. Which underlines the point that the British produced border is not a reliable one.

[edit on 29/3/2007 by Sauron]

Funny how fast this has escalated...oh, and the timing is just amazing. I seem to recall reading last year that the attack was going to happen this April. I really do not buy what is going on here, something smells incredibly fishy.

Originally posted by Ste2652
It was taken afterwards, for the MoD briefing yesterday - I imagine this is pretty much the only way to show the coordinates to the world without presenting evidence which may compromise the Royal Navy's GPS systems.

Thanks for that info, although if it was taken after the event, i can't see how that can be classed as reliable evidence? Much as i believe the brits were in the right with this, what if they were slightly over the line?

I am of course going to want to believe my own country, but where did they get this official boundary line from?

How much would it take to drag the vessel back a few hundred metres after all the ships have left, then hover over it and take eveidence of the co-ordinates...now in Iraqi waters?

Saying that, Sauron's post makes a very good point. All this talk of boundaries, yet there is'nt one officialy is there?

If Iraq and Iran have argued over this for years, are we just not in exactly the same arguement now, except Iran has our troops?

Talking of going back after the event to get evidence......if Iran arrested our troops for being in that spot on the photograph, then how come this heli was'nt challenged or has'nt been mentioned by Iran?

Would this not be another trespass into Iranian waters by the helicopter?

CX.

Well the news channels were saying yesterday the inspected boat is still there and I presume thats where the photo was taken. If not then we'd have had to send people in to go get it which Iran surely would have noticed and the risk of getting caught and shown to be trying to fix our evidence would have been a big deal.

If Iran had this GPS system with their evidence why did they first give coordinates still easily inside Iraqi waters.

US navy spokesman from Qatar I think it was gave an interview saying they monitored the situation like they do with all activity and said the UK troops were most definitely in Iraqi waters.

Personally I believe our version of events.

[edit on 29-3-2007 by platty]

If the RHIBs were in Iranian waters, then so was the Indian merchant vessel, right? I believe even Iran said that they captured the RN personnel as they were disembarking the merchant ship. So, if the Indian ship had an engine failure and anchored at that spot, it would still be in Iraqi or Iranian waters. And everyone is saying that vessel is in Iraqi waters.

Originally posted by CX
How much would it take to drag the vessel back a few hundred metres after all the ships have left, then hover over it and take eveidence of the co-ordinates...now in Iraqi waters?

Well, you can hardly sneak a ship that size anywhere, especially as it's right under Iran's nose and it's in the spotlight of the world's media. The Iranians will almost certainly have checked that boat out - if it was in Iranian waters or it had moved they'd have screamed about it long before now since they're getting desperate for excuses.

Talking of going back after the event to get evidence......if Iran arrested our troops for being in that spot on the photograph, then how come this heli was'nt challenged or has'nt been mentioned by Iran?

Would this not be another trespass into Iranian waters by the helicopter?

Indeed it would, but:

a) The boat is in Iraqi waters, so it isn't trespassing to fly over it. It appears that both the Iraqi government and the Iranian government realise this, as neither of them have disputed it and the Iranians changed their minds with the GPS coordinates (when they were told the first set of coordinates were in Iraqi waters, they did not dispute that fact. Instead they issued a new set of coordinates over the other side of the line the British used - implying that they accept that line as the de facto border, even though it hasn't been ratified).

b) How do you capture a helicopter whilst it's in the air without risking killing those inside? That would be an act of war.

Good point, i'm just having trouble understanding why Iran, who have made such a fuss over these brits being allegedly half a km inside thier waters;

a) Did'nt make a fuss about this heli going back to the exact same position if it was in Iranian waters (or does'nt the water territory issue apply to aircraft?)

b) Did'nt leave Iranian craft at that point, which to them is in thier waters, to prevent a repeat of this event and to protect the vessel that is acting as a marker to thier alleged evidence?

CX.

All it seems to suggest is that Iran has realised it's in the wrong, otherwise you're right - they'd be shouting about the helicopter too.

After listening to the news on how the division of the area was done through the years, the lines have been moved back and forth three times.

I guess it depends which mark benefits who to make the claims of legal or illegal trespassing. and to who the rest of the world will be listening.

I don't think it matters a whit where the line is. If the Iranians truly felt that the Brits had entered their waters they should have done what every other nation does: tell them to leave. Then, if they don't leave, arrest them. They're saying now that the Brits have entered Iranian waters 6 times. Really? And no one thought to... oh I don't know... complain to someone? God knows they complain about everything else just fine.

I call shenanigans. This is BS. It's spring and I think Iranian testosterone is running amok.

Originally posted by jtma508
I call shenanigans. This is BS. It's spring and I think Iranian testosterone is running amok.

Or, perhaps the other side of the Iranian border in the waters of the Persian gulf's the testosterone levels are in full gear and ready to finish the take over of the middle east.

See it can go both ways, Iran is not the one that have the persian gulf full with battleships ready to strike.

I dont think there ever was an official boundary agreed upon between Iraq and Iran.

Irans border muddles captivity issue

Agreement after agreement seem to have been thrown out by one side or another multiple times. Now they have no official border that either can agree upon.

I personally believe the map with the boundary lines the British showed to be correct. Why? Because the Iranians changed the coordinates after the Brits pointed out the fact those coordinates lie in Iraqi waters. If there was ambiguity as to the boundary, the Iranians wouldn't have felt the need to change the coordinates in the first place, they would have simply said those (first) coordinates were in Iranian waters.

They were caught out, simple as. This is not about a boundary issue, this is about a pre-planned Iranian operation to take coalition troops prisoner. The location the troops were in is neither here nor there to be perfectly honest, the Iranians have acted illegaly in this matter and they are being allowed to get away with it.

Cheers,
Zep

Originally posted by marg6043

Or, perhaps the other side of the Iranian border in the waters of the Persian gulf's the testosterone levels are in full gear and ready to finish the take over of the middle east.

See it can go both ways, Iran is not the one that have the persian gulf full with battleships ready to strike.

Since the purpose of ATS is to deny ignorance, I couldn't let this slide. Regardless of what you think of U.S. involvement in the region, I'll hand you a personal check for $5,000.00 (US dollars) if you can show me proof of a single 'battleship' in the persian gulf.

You will find carriers, cruisers, destroyers, frigates, patrol boats, submarines, and even the occasional oil tanker, but you will *not* find a battleship. Just because it has guns / missile launchers on it, don't assume that it's a battleship. If some talking head on the TV / Radio tells you it's a battleship, be really suspicious. The last battleships in service anywhere were the four Iowa-class, and they have all been set aside as either museum ships or as Class B reserve.

This state of affairs does have its advantages, though. "Battleship" is ten letters. "Destroyer", "Frigate", and "Cruiser" are all shorter, and thus easier and faster to type.

I said from the start that what ever evidence is released will be highly dubious.

A photo of a naval man holdign a GPS device does not constitute proof.

Hell, I could put on some old gloves, find some fishing boat, go 'somewhere' and take a photo of the mobile phone sized device.

If we had proper proof we would of released it DAY one.

Even the picture of the positioning of the boat, and the line that was displayed.

Give me 5 minutes, MS Paint and ill be done.

I dont think either of them have any proof of where that ship is.

All we have are two government saying 'they are wrong'
and captured sailors saying '' yes, we were wrong ''

I dont think it matters anymore to be honest.
They have them, and dont want to let them go until Britian admits they where in their waters.

And to be honest?.. im tending to believe Iran.. simply because the west has admitted that we have strayed into their territory on many occasion.

So why all of a sudden is it so hard to believe we did this time?

Originally posted by Brother Stormhammer

Originally posted by marg6043

Or, perhaps the other side of the Iranian border in the waters of the Persian gulf's the testosterone levels are in full gear and ready to finish the take over of the middle east.

See it can go both ways, Iran is not the one that have the persian gulf full with battleships ready to strike.

Since the purpose of ATS is to deny ignorance, I couldn't let this slide. Regardless of what you think of U.S. involvement in the region, I'll hand you a personal check for $5,000.00 (US dollars) if you can show me proof of a single 'battleship' in the persian gulf.

You will find carriers, cruisers, destroyers, frigates, patrol boats, submarines, and even the occasional oil tanker, but you will *not* find a battleship. Just because it has guns / missile launchers on it, don't assume that it's a battleship. If some talking head on the TV / Radio tells you it's a battleship, be really suspicious. The last battleships in service anywhere were the four Iowa-class, and they have all been set aside as either museum ships or as Class B reserve.

This state of affairs does have its advantages, though. "Battleship" is ten letters. "Destroyer", "Frigate", and "Cruiser" are all shorter, and thus easier and faster to type.

I hate it when people fly off acting all immature simply because someone types something quick hand.

Jee's mate, give her a break eh? thought we were meant to be civil.

The more respected members would of said

'' FYI Marg,Bships went out of service some time ago, there all big ships of battle, but there specifically destroyers or frigates ''

Originally posted by Brother Stormhammer

Since the purpose of ATS is to deny ignorance, I couldn't let this slide. Regardless of what you think of U.S. involvement in the region, I'll hand you a personal check for $5,000.00 (US dollars) if you can show me proof of a single 'battleship' in the persian gulf.

Hey what can I say, I am from the old school of language on warfare, I am still stuck with pearl harbor.

No everybody here is in their teens, twenties and . . . you . . . will not get my age.

[edit on 29-3-2007 by marg6043]

Originally posted by marg6043
and . . . you . . . will not get my age.

[edit on 29-3-2007 by marg6043]

47,

wouldn't there be some record of where the Brit's where, you would think the Iranians would have some sort of evidence.