War on pirates? Bite me!

reply to post by lel1111

dont worry lots of people think they have a calling there station

Originally posted by lel1111
Hi. I actually "tried" to start a thread on the above subject, but was kindly informed that the article originated by the Sorcha person. I appreciate that they were gentle with me

But seriously, this does seem rather odd. I'm trying to search to see what I can find out about it. Seems there would be more media coverage on what's going on with that situation - yeh right.

Hi lel1111,

Sometimes I wonder if ATS isn't here to bury the truth~

Many of the good stories, those that reveal the best kept secrets, get buried here in the Skunk Works forum.

What does Skunk mean? That something STINKS !

Who goes looking for a Skunk? Nobody in their right mind.

Skunk Works is our very own ATS GHETTO.

Maybe with Obama buckling under many of the CIA's covert operations, this blatant unacceptable ATS censorship, falsely paraded as politically correct behavior bent on preserving plausible scientific methodology, will cease as soon as its CIA mentors must desist and reform or be replaced.

More to the point. Your thread was "informally censored" because it had been mentioned by a source deemed unreliable... what am I saying, they are SURE of this fact, they KNOW that Sorcha is an agent of disinformation and both ATS and yourself would be her accomplices in furthering such an evil goal! Abandon your thread before it is too late!

My own thread was denounced in the same manner. It attempted to connect the Gaza battles with the Gulf of Aden naval concentration. Neither of these events is adequately explained by the mainstream media, and little if any alternative theories as to their motivation or explanations of these events is presented here at ATS.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

That thread was, due to its absence of "politically correct explanations from validated sources", exiled into the Skunk Works Ghetto and then effectively killed off by allegations that its very basis was a charlatan Sitchin of whom I can only be an unwittingly or willful accomplice. Much like your own thread which was "canceled" under allegations that Sorcha had mentioned something similar. Thanks ATS for your dedicated quest for truth! I certainly hope that ATS activities of concealment of the genuine attempts by its members to explore the truth will cease with changes in the USA's covert propaganda and disinformation policies.

These threads offers a theory of what might be going on. After all, Ronald Reagan did state at the United Nations that a threat from elsewhere could reconcile all nations, friend or foe. But he was just President of the United States of America, is that an ATS validated information source? We are witnessing sworn enemy nations alongside one another in battle formation. Against whom or what? Asking such a question will send you to the ATS Skunk Works Ghetto.

[edit on 24-1-2009 by Getsmart]

Originally posted by defcon5
Obviously you don’t know much about sea search and rescue. The reason that they need so many craft is because the craft they are hunting for are small zodiacs in a huge ocean. To effectively find craft that size requires air support, air support requires an aircraft carrier, and aircraft carriers require a defensive and logistical support screen. They never send an aircraft carrier anywhere that it does not have a full fleet to support and protect it.

What costs more money? An instant computerized search of square miles of ocean using military satellites with software recognition of vessels - something used routinely under any form of naval alert conditions - or sending entire naval fleets into a theater of operations? A simple imagery analysis of suspect vessels and standard locally available land based air support could get any pirates.

It is construed that some of this pirate activity is actually sponsored by certain powers that be in order to provide a simple public relations ploy to explain any strange naval occurrences in the region. So these would be indeed real pirate events, but supported and protected by States who do their utmost not to catch the guys except once in a while to keep up the credibility of their media smokescreen.

Don't believe it, then I guess you also believe that all the military might of the western world can't find a half blind mollah on a moped. This is ATS, so keep your eyes, ears and mind open. They may not be lying to us with evil intent, but might have good reason to conceal the truth of such an extensive military nature. But we might have our own good reasons, as in understanding current events that affect our lives, to explore various venues of truth, however improbable or unsupported by the facts - which are themselves concealed.

Originally posted by Getsmart
Sometimes I wonder if ATS isn't here to bury the truth~

Many of the good stories, those that reveal the best kept secrets, get buried here in the Skunk Works forum.

What does Skunk mean? That something STINKS !

Who goes looking for a Skunk? Nobody in their right mind.

Skunk Works is our very own ATS GHETTO.

That is not what it means…
Here is what “Skunkworks” is a reference to:

Skunk Works is an official alias for Lockheed Martin’s Advanced Development Programs (ADP), formerly called Lockheed Advanced Development Projects. Skunk Works is responsible for a number of famous aircraft designs, including the U-2, the SR-71, the F-117, and the F-22. Its largest current project is the F-35 Lightning II, which will be used in the air forces of several countries around the world. Production is expected to last for up to four decades.

"Skunk works" or "skunkworks" is widely used in business, engineering, and technical fields to describe a group within an organization given a high degree of autonomy and unhampered by bureaucracy, tasked with working on advanced or secret projects.

Hence the fact that you can post there with a lower amount of scrutiny to the rules applying to the rest of ATS.

Since I'm no exception to the information overload, and sometimes I don't take the time to click on links to other threads, here is that posting which was sent to the Skunk Works Ghetto.

Originally posted by Getsmart
This is of course only wild speculation. But it might be true.

The premise is that Israel was founded after WWII to control the cradle of human civilization and protect from undiscerning or undeserving eyes any high technology that could be retrieved from secret archeological sites.

Much of this information has presumably been transmitted through the highest levels of Freemasonry, which is an offshoot of the Brotherhood of the Serpent with early Egyptian origins. Through oral tradition transmission of knowledge to a small group of initiates, it is possible that ancient knowledge of humanity's origins - either highly developed previous civilizations or even an extra-terrestrial colonization - form established secrets, jealously guarded by the enlightened ones from the rest of the population.

In this case, we must envisage that there may have been other reasons for invading and controlling Iraq than oil, especially given the extensive use of bunker buster missiles which can furrow very deep into the ground, supposedly to reach underground military targets but also possibly to either destroy or block access to buried ancient high technology or evidence of our unknown past. Similarly, Israel's initial incursion into the Gaza Strip during December 2008 may not be justified by gas reserves off the coast. It was primarily through aviation bombings, mostly in empty fields although urban targets received most media coverage due to casualties.

Israel stated that the open field bombings were to destroy over 400 tunnels used for smuggling weapons. Video documents show how tunnels enable smuggling of anything which could fit in the narrow passages. One can imagine that various merchandise would find a path through them. But would these scattered small tunnels justify massive use of exorbitant bunker bombs during weeks of intensive bombing?

Could Israeli spies working under cover in the Palestinian armed branches of the Hamas or Hezbollah or even as tunneling smugglers have learned of the discovery of passageways leading to underground installations dating back to earlier civilizations? Of course this is a long shot, but it would at least better explain the military strategy of the initial attack, the selective picking off of certain Palestinian "enemies" who may actually not be the most dangerous elements but instead those who were witnesses to such a discovery, knowing its location and able to testify and/or lead others there.

Here is the geographical location which is allegedly reported in ancient Sumerian texts as the location of the original Space Center of the early colonizers referred to in clay tablets as "Gods":

You may wish to note Gaza's geo-strategic in ancient Sumer, even if it does not appear to be one of the most important locations on Earth today. Interestingly, the conflict in that location is putting it on the map as seldom before, and making it once again a key theater of operations. Unfortunately for the local residents who presumably may happen to live near said tunnels or be neighbors of certain key figures targeted for elimination.

Another map shows the early cities between the Tiber and the Eurphates, leading to the Red Sea, and in geometric alignment with the original landing paths from the days preceding ancient Egypt.

You will note that extending beyond this presumed flight path, we find the Gulf of Aden where, for the first time in history, most of the world's Navy fleets have recently congregated in mass, nuclear submarines and aircraft carriers included, supposedly to stave off a few random pirates in inflatable boats. Is this any more likely than such a massive bombing of amateur tunnelers in the Gaza Strip? All conjecture, but with a grain of truth?

Is this ethnic war fabricated as a cover up?

Originally posted by defcon5

Originally posted by Getsmart
Sometimes I wonder if ATS isn't here to bury the truth~

Many of the good stories, those that reveal the best kept secrets, get buried here in the Skunk Works forum.

What does Skunk mean? That something STINKS !

Who goes looking for a Skunk? Nobody in their right mind.

Skunk Works is our very own ATS GHETTO.

That is not what it means…
Here is what “Skunkworks” is a reference to:

Skunk Works is an official alias for Lockheed Martin’s Advanced Development Programs (ADP), formerly called Lockheed Advanced Development Projects. Skunk Works is responsible for a number of famous aircraft designs, including the U-2, the SR-71, the F-117, and the F-22. Its largest current project is the F-35 Lightning II, which will be used in the air forces of several countries around the world. Production is expected to last for up to four decades.

"Skunk works" or "skunkworks" is widely used in business, engineering, and technical fields to describe a group within an organization given a high degree of autonomy and unhampered by bureaucracy, tasked with working on advanced or secret projects.

Hence the fact that you can post there with a lower amount of scrutiny to the rules applying to the rest of ATS.

Defcon,

I take exception to the fact that you may be a de facto ATS over moderator? I indeed expected a reaction to my post, as it could perhaps be misconstrued as questioning the administrative integrity of ATS. However, I expected it to come from an officially transparent source as ATS administrator or moderator. Where do you fit in?

Skunk is indeed well known as a denominator for anything one would want to mask from public view by veiling it with a repulsive odor, or its equivalent in disinformation. This is why seeing exactly that, a pattern of response to controversial threads on the basis that they are politically incorrect, brings to light that it is indeed a SKUNK section designed as a ghetto where threads are led to extermination.

Most people, other than adamant militarists such as yourself (at least that is what your handle highlights) do not know this term. A skunk is a skunk, a repulsive animal that tinges with its violent stench anything that comes close. Just run over a dead skunk and you'll know what I mean.

This ghetto forum serves a distinct purpose, as you will see that many threads exiled to this location, often for implausible reasons, wither away and die. Why?

For 2 important reasons:

1. They are forcibly removed from the active, specialized forum of debate where those most interested and educated in the subject gather;

2. There is a silent but eloquent condemnation of the scientific approach to issues, the very fundamental premises of theories expounded are defined by this classification as "unlikely" or to politely "very creative" if not delusional. Authors of such threads are thus mechanically associated with kook weirdo crackpot curtain hangers who are having a hard time coming down from a lifelong '___' acid trip.

Furthermore, I find it interesting that your own presence in this thread, given the nature of the debate, concentrates on rebuking my sincere observations in passing of this forum section's instrumentation by ATS rather than commenting in the considerably more important issues put forth in this thread: an unmatched military buildup in a remote region of the globe where there is no acceptable official explanation which meets even the most casual examination.

Tell us what you think is going on in the Gulf of Aden, skunks are skunks, no matter what purpose they serve.

Getsmart

Originally posted by Zaphod58
You say a supertanker is a huge ship, so is an aircraft carrier. Have you seen high altitude pictures of either of them? They're tiny little dots that you can barely make out.

static.howstuffworks.com...

This is a Japanese aircraft carrier in WWII taken from a few thousand feet. That ship is pretty big for the times, but it doesn't look that big here. I'll find more recent pics later this weekend if I have time. But a ship that's 3/4ths of a mile long is NOT that big when you're talking about a MILLION SQUARE MILES of ocean to cover.

Thread Killer,

You are true to your nickname, and show talent as devil's advocate. However, you seem to think that all our world's nations have to rely upon is a human visual bird's eye view of aerial reconnaissance. Many of the nations involved in this massive naval deployment have geostationary spy satellites immediately above the region in question. Their multi-wavelength surveillance sensors are connected to highly advanced software which gives instant access to vessel recognition, and provides wide area scanning functions to detect and identify any number of pre-defined physical shapes. In fact, the ocean may even be an easier place to scan with computerized detection systems, given that there is little interference with imaging sensors due to easily removed water motion and only an occasional whale to give a false signature.

Nothing is further from the truth than stating that the world's superpowers do not possess the capacity for real-time monitoring of large commercial vessels, especially as these are in constant radio contact with others and use the most modern uninterrupted GPS navigation systems which signal their exact position within a meter. Your interest in perusing Jane's Defense and engaging is military aircraft attack potential or other militaristic speculation, lends nothing to the credit of your arguments. Sorry, but you have NOT succeeded in killing this thread, even though it has indeed been exiled to the Skunk Works ghetto.

reply to post by Getsmart


Even with satelite monitoring, you're still talking a huge area to watch. You need a massive computer system to identify the ships since they're going to be tiny in a huge area. And even then they can identify the TYPE, but they can't identify the individual ship, since they can't see the NAME on the SIDES of the ship looking straight down at them.

As for the transponder, just like an aircraft transponder they can be disabled. Anything electronic can be disabled, and once it's disabled it's easy to make a supertanker disapear into the ocean.

You guys seem to think that they can pinpoint to the exact inch where any ship in the world is. If that's true then why do they spend millions searching for them when a ship disappears? They would know EXACTLY where it was when it disappeared, and EXACTLY where it was sitting.

(As for the "threadkilller" title that you guys ALWAYS seem to harp on, I suggest you look up the word "SARCASM" sometime. )

[edit on 1/24/2009 by Zaphod58]

reply to post by Getsmart


How is explaining to you something that is common knowledge moderating the forum? Most folk on ATS know what the Skunkworks is because they used to fly aircraft out at Groom Lake Area 51. I know of no other reference to those two words being used together. If you want to try and find some type of conspiracy to the name, then by all means knock yourself out, but you are wasting your time.

reply to post by Zaphod58


as i posted before here are the links of vessels involved. yes transponders can be disabled but none have yet. the transponders are often turned off in the area as its not only the authoritys that can monitor them.small speed boats may have a range of 40 miles, hence the motherships its simple enough to work out which is which. you know which ships are in the gulf fact.you will know which is hijacked via mayday fact. you know which ships are being ransomed fact therefore if a ship has been hijacked but not ransomed and is seen sailing then the chances are its a mother ship. forget your scanners, sattelites etc this scenario has got this far with nothing more than a passage log a vhf
and a transponder. by the way aswell as transponders ships will also carry several epirb's these can be set off and will alert the authoritys to the ship. epirbs range in size from a ciggarete packet to the size of 2l drinks bottle and can be put antwhere.they do know EXACTLY where they are when hijacked. nobody has said ships can be pinpointed to the exact inch dcs annd gps are only accurate to 10 m on a good day you then have to take into account if the vessel was still underway when it lost its electrics, take into account of tidal currents in places these change speed and bearin hourly . weather, is it safe to launch a rescue attempt , how far is the casualty. if it takes 6 hrs to arrive on scene and youve not heard anything from the vessel it could be 30+ miles away ,in poor visability its going to take some finding if its still afloat then you could have wind over tide affecting debris from the vessel . sailing/shipping has been around for thousands of years, the people who worked out how to navigate by the stars and the evoloution of navigation did it all with out computers,you seem to have a very limited knowledge of the maritime industry .to make such a comment in my opinion belittles sailors/crew the world over not to mention the SAR crews. please for the second time LOOK AT THE LINKS BELOW this points out where all shipping is / anchored in the gulf and the state of play re ransoms

4.bp.blogspot.com...

www.sailwx.info...

Originally posted by da pickles
if it takes 6 hrs to arrive on scene and youve not heard anything from the vessel it could be 30+ miles away ,in poor visability its going to take some finding if its still afloat then you could have wind over tide affecting debris from the vessel .

EXACTLY! And how are you going to find it if you're talking about the size of the area that they are looking in? Aircraft and satelites. Which direction did it go after the hijacking? They may know where it was WHEN it was hijacked, but in an area that size it takes time to respond. Where did the ship go in that time?

You said that they turned off their transponders when they were in that area, which is exactly what I was saying. They know where the BIG ships in the area are at, because they use their transponders. Fishing boats don't have the tech that a supertanker has. The pirates are using fishing boats, and smaller boats to hijack them. An aircraft or satelite is going to have a hell of a time finding something that small.

What do them having used stars to navigate for thousands of years have ANYTHING to do with finding a large ship in a huge area? NOTHING, that's what.

I looked at your links. The first one only shows where the attacks happened. The second one is taking data from the transponders. When that's off, they CAN'T get the locations. It's the exact same thing as when an aircraft tansponder goes off. They might see the plane/ship on radar, but they have no way of knowing anything about it.

As for your logic on ships that weren't showing a transponder, or hadn't been ransomed yet, or hadn't transmitted a mayday I love that one. So now all ships in the Gulf have to have a transponder? What about the small fishing trawlers? What about tiny little boats that barely have a radio on board? You want to force all of them to have transponders? Because those are what the pirates are using.

[edit on 1/24/2009 by Zaphod58]

reply to post by Zaphod58


i think u missed my point . the pirates are using small fast boats launched from a MOTHERSHIP . the small boats have 4-5 people aboard heavily armed and a range of approx 40 miles thats 20 out 20 back .do you think a 8kt fishing boat could pace a 14kt freighter?
if you were on watch and saw pirates/hijackers attempting to board your vessel you WOULD turn on the transponder and issue a mayday. the transponders are only on ships over a certain tonnage ie freight, tankers etc . transponders are not manditory in small vessels and as u say unlikely to be found in 3rd world fishing boats, althought he maritime code is changing to to get all vessels that are equipped with gps and vhf to upgrade to dcs.
as for the first link the red dots show where the ships are at anchor not where they were attacked. the yellow dots indicate the position of attacks/failed hijack attempts. as u can see from the red dots u would never sail that close to shore .
as for .hence the motherships its simple enough to work out which is which. you know which ships are in the gulf fact.you will know which is hijacked via mayday fact. you know which ships are being ransomed fact therefore if a ship has been hijacked but not ransomed and is seen sailing then the chances are its a mother ship.
if you have 10 ships in an area , 4 get hijacked, 3 of them get ransomed and released and all 10 ships are seen sailing then the chances are that the tenth ship is being used as a mothership!its not hard to work out!!

reply to post by da pickles


No it's not. The motherships are NOT the supertankers and large ships that are being hijacked. They are fishing trawlers and other boats of a similar size. So you would have to hunt down all the fishing trawlers and determine which ones were legitimate, and which weren't. Which brings us back to having eyes on target. If the motherships were tankers and other hijacked ships then it WOULD be much easier. But they're not. They're using trawlers, and small cargo ships.

This is a suspected mother ship:



Doesn't look like a hijacked tanker to me.

[edit on 1/24/2009 by Zaphod58]

Well guys, I'm out of here. It has turned into a shouting match about what it would take to locate a bunch of improvised pirates rather than why all the world's navies are concentrated in the Gulf of Aden. I guess since all mass media is beating the same drum day in and day out, and worse yet, creating a blanket of silence on this issue as of late, then there's no reason to suspect it is anything but a reunion of all the planet's naval might to upon occasion, and only after the fact, try to intercept a few impoverished local fishermen who have improvised a new livelihood as self-styled pirates.

Regarding detection of vessels, the technology is far further advanced than you suspect - only they're not telling you. GPS accuracy has been voluntarily reduced for most civilian applications. This means that they have purposely downgraded the accuracy of signals from satellites in order to retain a higher level of detail for military applications only, and they also reserve the right in the case of a conflict to modify signals and transmit false coordinates to other users if useful to their military tactics.

Regarding strict top down vision, this is seldom the case. Military operations habitually cross reference return signals from several sources in order to establish 3d renditions and obtain more accurate visual identifiers from a number of angles. This isn't recent rocket science, just old stuff inherited from the cold war era.

Regarding ATS arbitrarily moving, without warning or consultation, threads from areas of interest to a bag of mixed nuts in the Skunk Works forum, this isn't Kosher. It does the thread and the topic research and discussion a great disservice to remove it from its dedicated public and place it where few if any are interested. After all, who's interested in off the record secret aircraft projects when you can explore sections dedicated to UFO sightings and alien technology back engineered at Area 51... coincidentally elsewhere than in the Skunk Works section. This IS a ghetto, and you guys are slumming. I'll lay bets you came here after first exploring the other sections which were readily identified as being of interest to you: PROOF.

reply to post by Zaphod58


i never said they were using supertankers as mother ships. the ship in your picture is larger than you may think.

www.eaglespeak.us...

and where in your link does it say that the vessel is a fishing trawler ? you say their not using freighters and captured vessels yet all evidence from numerous sources points to this. freighters steamers tramps come in various tonnage!
please try and substantiate your claims for the fishing boat scenario!

reply to post by da pickles


At least two mother ships that were sunk were identified as fishing trawlers that I have seen. Several others were identified as small cargo ships. I don't have the time to dig up the information right now but will when I get home later tonight.

As for the hunt for these motherships. Aircraft can see these vessels from high altitudes using a vast array of sensors. You make it out like these recon craft are using visual identification when this is not the case. A point for an example of using sensors on board aircraft to locate something small. Here in Iraq our AV8-Bs, which are no longer going to be used in Iraq, were flying standard recon patrols over Iraqi airspace at high altitudes. Using different types of sensors they saw unusual movement in and out of a building. This means they saw humans moving in and out of a house and were what looked like loading a vehicle. They continued to survey this area at high altitude and led a Marine force into the house where it was discovered to be an IED factory and the vehicle they were loading was going to be a moving bomb. So you can try to tell me that looking for a ship in the gulf is a needle in a haystack. Well seeing people moving in and out of a building from just as high of an altitude as they would be looking for a hijacked ship seems like it would be harder. However maybe Im wrong, maybe locating a human from 20,000ft is easier then locating a massive supertanker from 20,000ft, but something tells me that the supertanker would be easier to see. So this means that these pirates have an extremely good hiding place, or the governments of the world are in on it and just "dont see" these missing vessels in their "attempts" to find them.

-edit- The reason I brought up the fact that the AV8-B Harrier is no longer in service in Iraq, is because I figured that someone would bring it up to try to prove my post wrong. The last AV8-B Harrier squadron was VMA-311 based out of Yuma, Arizona and it left back in September-October and is to be the last squadron of harriers to go to Iraq. The new focus of the war is actually in Afganistan, but most American people do not realize this as the news media coverage emphasises Iraq war. Tid-bit of info, there are more American military dying in Afganistan at the current moment then there are in Iraq. Bet you didnt know that.

[edit on 25-1-2009 by speed_demon]

At some point in time you are going to have to visually identify the ship. But even so, finding a ship on sensors is still like looking for a needle in a haystack. Even after your aircraft identifies the ship though, you have to get some kind of asset on site, so you're going to have to have a lot of ships in the area. An aircraft can't do much to secure a ship.

I always wondered why Google Earth never had water maps. Maybe the reason Google Earth does not have water maps is because we could see all the movements on the ocean, Including the Gulf area. Big Brother would not allow this.... Otherwise the enemy would know your on the way...

reply to post by Dometheus


Google Earth is not real time. Their maps are several years old and are only updated every so often. So there is no chance of showing any current ship movements.