Wacka Posted May 21, 2009 Share Posted May 21, 2009 blah blah blah Now you have switched from the Naval Observatory to a HUGE Air Base. Ever been down to Fort Walton Beach in Florida? The airport shares the area with the Eglin Air Force Base? Look up Okaloosa regional airport. If I told you of one of the dozens of installations I have been to I'd have to hunt you down and kill you. I've been worked at secure locations for over 30 years. You name the branchs of the US Military and 3 letter organizations and I've worked for them in the US and abroad. AA only has two letters. KKK does have three though! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted May 21, 2009 Share Posted May 21, 2009 blah blah blah Now you have switched from the Naval Observatory to a HUGE Air Base. Ever been down to Fort Walton Beach in Florida? The airport shares the area with the Eglin Air Force Base? Look up Okaloosa regional airport. If I told you of one of the dozens of installations I have been to I'd have to hunt you down and kill you. I've been worked at secure locations for over 30 years. You name the branchs of the US Military and 3 letter organizations and I've worked for them in the US and abroad. Oh, bull sh--. You're too stupid to have gotten access to secure locations. Hell, for all your "knowledge", you're too stupid to even know the security at the Naval Observatory, despite having "driven by" it in the past eight months, and apparently monitoring the cloud cover over it on Google Maps for the past eight years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted May 21, 2009 Share Posted May 21, 2009 Now I'm a liar? Yes, son I have. Do some research into Harris Corp / RF Communications in Rochester and see what they do. Be careful the Feds might come looking. Well mister knowitall, other than having the VP live there, what is the main function of the NO? I know, do you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted May 21, 2009 Share Posted May 21, 2009 I've been worked at secure locations for over 30 years. Subject of some top secret experiment? Sorry, couldn't resist poking fun at your poor wording Do some research into Harris Corp I'm familiar with Harris. Good company. Access to controlled documents isn't exactly accessing super top secret for your eyes only because I have to kill you after I tell you kind of stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsFan-4-Ever Posted May 21, 2009 Share Posted May 21, 2009 Subject of some top secret experiment? Sorry, couldn't resist poking fun at your poor wording I'm familiar with Harris. Good company. Access to controlled documents isn't exactly accessing super top secret for your eyes only because I have to kill you after I tell you kind of stuff. Access too, creating them, installing the equipment across the globe. Many of the places I have been to are classified as is the agencies they are associated with. I couldn't even tell my wife where I was. Not all programs are hush hush TS. Where have I ever said I knew everything VA Bills ??? .. You were the smart ass that called me a liar because I said I have been to certain places. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted May 21, 2009 Share Posted May 21, 2009 Access too, creating them, installing the equipment across the globe. Many of the places I have been to are classified as is the agencies they are associated with. I couldn't even tell my wife where I was. Not all programs are hush hush TS. Where have I ever said I knew everything VA Bills ??? .. You were the smart ass that called me a liar because I said I have been to certain places. Okay mistersmartypants. let me ask a different question. How do you know it isn't better that things are blurred. just because you've been on a military base, doesn't mean you know is going on in each building. Have you actually been a facility officer responsible for the security cert on a the facility? Had to put in place security measures? etc.. As a once time facility officer and security chief, let me tell you it's a lot better if the bad guys can't see anything. What they can't see they can't value, and what they can't value, they won't target. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted May 21, 2009 Share Posted May 21, 2009 Many of the places I have been to are classified as is the agencies they are associated with. I couldn't even tell my wife where I was. I wouldn't tell my wife either if I had been to the Bunny Ranch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Booster4324 Posted May 21, 2009 Share Posted May 21, 2009 Do a little research. During gulf I, you'll read some interesting write-ups on how smart bombs were used to actually hit the doors on the bunkers and score a better hit because we "knew" where on the buildings to target. While it's likely China and Russia have sat's of their own and likely could use that to guide said missle, some lesser countries don't. They likely have some very smart planners though who could look at a publically available say photo and make a pretty good educated guess at vunerability, entrances, and maybe pick out good targets of opportunity to hit or further investigate. Take a building that is just there versus one that has lots of large boulders and huge concrete barriers around it. Which would you hit and likely has more value? If it's clouded you can't tell, but if you see little men walking around guarding a building that is surrounded by car sized boulders, tank traps, etc... you might as well paint a big old target on the roof. I don't know what Obama and his crew is thinking. I know that Hillary and the DHS Secretary are both very publically anti-military and have been very vocal about it. Whether things are occuring on purpose or subconsciencely someone has weakened the ability for the defense department and GSA who has control over all federal buildings to do their job of protecting facilities. I agree with the first bit (I watch Discovery). However, I seriously doubt Biden is a target (unless Obama decides to bump him off). Is it possible there are other important things there? There probably are and I can see it being on a list of targets, just low on the list. Question, was this pixellated before. I probably got the address wrong, but I think this is an image of a nuclear power plant in the state I work in. I combined my answer to your last point with my answer to GG. If you concede to the general rule of life that the truth is somewhere in the middle, you don't have to accept the premise that Obama hates the military and wants the US to be attacked to recognize that the move to unblock satellite imagery of military installations as an incredibly stupid act that has zero strategic benefit to anyone but USA's enemies. Since we've just come off 8 years of people screaming that the Bush administration's actions have lessened the USA's position around the world simply due to those people's perceptions of the country and its leader, it shouldn't shock the conscience that Obama's actions are perceived as hostile by the military and intelligence wings of the US government itself. I actually think it is a mistake to unblock satellite imagery of military installations. I would guess that cost money to do, seeing as how Bush's policy was already in place. Possibly not much, a few thousand dollars perhaps, although my guess is tack on a few zeroes. I cannot see any benefit for the images to be available, except possibly demonstrating that the US is more open and free now. Somehow, I doubt that made a blip on the popularity scale on a global level. As to the military viewing Obama's policies as potentially hostile, I would not be shocked to see fairly huge cuts to the military (Navy and Air Force first) in the next few years. Something has to give budget wise and that is my guess what will have to go. There have been some cuts, but I expect more dramatic ones. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted May 22, 2009 Share Posted May 22, 2009 I agree with the first bit (I watch Discovery). However, I seriously doubt Biden is a target (unless Obama decides to bump him off). Is it possible there are other important things there? There probably are and I can see it being on a list of targets, just low on the list. Question, was this pixellated before. I probably got the address wrong, but I think this is an image of a nuclear power plant in the state I work in. I combined my answer to your last point with my answer to GG. I actually think it is a mistake to unblock satellite imagery of military installations. I would guess that cost money to do, seeing as how Bush's policy was already in place. Possibly not much, a few thousand dollars perhaps, although my guess is tack on a few zeroes. I cannot see any benefit for the images to be available, except possibly demonstrating that the US is more open and free now. Somehow, I doubt that made a blip on the popularity scale on a global level. As to the military viewing Obama's policies as potentially hostile, I would not be shocked to see fairly huge cuts to the military (Navy and Air Force first) in the next few years. Something has to give budget wise and that is my guess what will have to go. There have been some cuts, but I expect more dramatic ones. Biden is a small fry. I don't know everything that was unblocked but if you read around GSA and military folks are none to happy about several things being unblocked. Also, google, etc... if you read make it a point now of updating the images weekly now, not every 5 years. I am glad you don't know what goes on at all the installation, nor the exact building they occur. However, there are some smart folks who can look at something and make a pretty good guess on what a facility does based on config, and surrounding. They can also look at how best to hit that target. They also can look for alternate ways onto a base outside of the typical gate. Do we really need to share that with the world? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Booster4324 Posted May 22, 2009 Share Posted May 22, 2009 Thought I was pretty clear in my post that I agreed with you to some extent and that sharing the info was a bad idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted May 22, 2009 Share Posted May 22, 2009 I actually think it is a mistake to unblock satellite imagery of military installations. I would guess that cost money to do, seeing as how Bush's policy was already in place. Possibly not much, a few thousand dollars perhaps, although my guess is tack on a few zeroes. The cost of blocking the images is equal to two phone calls to the two satellite imagery providers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Booster4324 Posted May 22, 2009 Share Posted May 22, 2009 The cost of blocking the images is equal to two phone calls to the two satellite imagery providers. Right, only no one researched it? The ramifications of that phone call? I am referring to them unblocking the images btw. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted May 22, 2009 Share Posted May 22, 2009 Right, only no one researched it? The ramifications of that phone call? I am referring to them unblocking the images btw. Probably no one needed to. The commercial availability of overhead imagery predates Google Maps by a long time (20 years, at least - I remember being able to count ships in NY harbor in published Landsat images in magazines). Various elements of the government's alphabet soup have been requesting censorship of that imagery for just as long - Homeland Security probably has an entire department dedicated to it, as well as DoD, but I wouldn't be surprised if ten years ago Treasury and DoE (especially DoE) weren't censoring satellite photos too..I also wouldn't be surprised if there were "agreements in place" of a sort whereby private imagery providers agree to censor certain areas at the federal government's request, and that provide a process by which the government can submit changes to the agreement. And all that before it even hits Google Maps. BillsFan-4-Ever's particular brand of idiocy isn't even in her loose semantics or weird interpretation of what constitutes "cloud cover". It's in her ridiculously simplistic idea that Bush censored Google Earth. Yeah, because the world actually works that way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsFan-4-Ever Posted May 22, 2009 Share Posted May 22, 2009 VA Bills They want high profile targets. IF the bad guys are going to attack, do you think they will use hand grenades, or use something on a larger scale. What military significance were the Twin Towers and what of the security at the Penatgon... Blurring out the circle surrounded by a public road won't stop them if they choose to attack something on the scale of that small geographical target. Why not the Capitol building or the White house. From what I recall they were never blurred out. Those buildings are not as importand as the NO? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsFan-4-Ever Posted May 22, 2009 Share Posted May 22, 2009 The cost of blocking the images is equal to two phone calls to the two satellite imagery providers. The image istelf from the satellite is not blocked, the image released to and used by google, yahoo ets for the public is blurred out. Ever hear of or use photo shop? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted May 22, 2009 Share Posted May 22, 2009 VA Bills They want high profile targets. IF the bad guys are going to attack, do you think they will use hand grenades, or use something on a larger scale. What military significance were the Twin Towers and what of the security at the Penatgon... Blurring out the circle surrounded by a public road won't stop them if they choose to attack something on the scale of that small geographical target. Why not the Capitol building or the White house. From what I recall they were never blurred out. Those buildings are not as importand as the NO? Umm.... you do realize the pentagon was ungoing a hardening at the time? You do understand that if that plane would have hit any other side they damamge and death tool would have been significantly less? You do understand that it's possible that they may have looked at publically available imagery to decide where to actually hit, seeing the ongoing construction and type of contruction on the rest of the target. You understand that not having those images may have saved US Military lives. I guess that doesn't matter since they are just military men and women. On the first part, you understand that yes they likely will go with a car bomb or a frontal assault. You do understand knowing where the entry points are, protections etc... makes it easier to attack. Again, we are not trying to hide it from Russia or China. they have sats and can see it. We're trying to protect from the small country terrorists and home grown terrorists who don't have ready access to that type of images. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted May 22, 2009 Share Posted May 22, 2009 And all that before it even hits Google Maps. BillsFan-4-Ever's particular brand of idiocy isn't even in her loose semantics or weird interpretation of what constitutes "cloud cover". It's in her ridiculously simplistic idea that Bush censored Google Earth. Yeah, because the world actually works that way. Right on queue, her idiotic response proved the prophecy (like it was really hard). National Geospatial Agency gets the last word whether DigitalGLobe & Geoeye can release sensitive imagery to commercial use. Those were the two phone calls I was referring to. The satellites take pictures of the Earth; US Govt decides what can & can't be seen by Google and other yahoos. No photoshop is needed if the image is blocked from the get go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsFan-4-Ever Posted May 22, 2009 Share Posted May 22, 2009 On the first part, you understand that yes they likely will go with a car bomb or a frontal assault. You do understand knowing where the entry points are, protections etc... makes it easier to attack. Again, we are not trying to hide it from Russia or China. they have sats and can see it. We're trying to protect from the small country terrorists and home grown terrorists who don't have ready access to that type of images. How do you know that China or Russia isn't selling sat photo's? They seem to be helping them in many other ways. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted May 22, 2009 Share Posted May 22, 2009 How do you know that China or Russia isn't selling sat photo's? They seem to be helping them in many other ways. Those photos would be classified by the Chinese and Russian governments. As TSW's resident SME on classified matters, you would understand that it would be difficult to get the authorization to release such documents to foreign nationals. I don't know any of the many other ways you speak of that the Russians and Chinese are helping the terrorists as I do not have the necessary clearance to read the intel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsFan-4-Ever Posted May 22, 2009 Share Posted May 22, 2009 And all that before it even hits Google Maps. BillsFan-4-Ever's particular brand of idiocy isn't even in her loose semantics or weird interpretation of what constitutes "cloud cover". It's in her ridiculously simplistic idea that Bush censored Google Earth. Yeah, because the world actually works that way. OK Dickless. Where exactly did I said Bush or for that matter Dick head Cheney censored Google. Those were your ASSumptions. Not mine. My original comment was that I observed a difference at that particular location when viewing google maps. But nope, you had to get a hard on about it. I suppose that's why you refer to me a girl so as not to appear gay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts