Click on pic for past Navair pings.
Post or FReepmail me if you wish to be enlisted in or discharged from the Navair Pinglist.
This is a medium to low volume pinglist.
Weird, this take by an Admiral. WAR plays out on every front, remember.
BS … who the hell else would it be! Druids, mayhap!
It was the Filipino Monkey Man. He would cuss us out all night on watch. It was a riot.
Ping
Terrible headline.
Bull**** headline and poorly written article.
The BOATS were Iranian. The Navy was asked if the transmission threatening to lay mines and explode them was confirmed to be from the Iranians.
As the person transmitting didn’t identify themselves the Navy did *assume* that the radio transmission was in response to their repeated radio warnings to move away from the ships and therefore, by extension, was Iranian.
The MSM is once again splitting hairs and trying to make the military look bad.
Nonsense.
This is a reporters wishful out-of-context interpretation of what some Navy lieutenant said.
Could such a radio call have come from shore or someplace else? Sure. Is it likely? No. Of course there’s no practical way to effectively tell where a radio call is coming from. Duh.
Presuming that it was a VHF radio, though, brings it into the range of line-of-sight. A VHF can reach over the horizon, but not very far and the signal degrades quickly.
If you have boats close aboard and you get a loud clear VHF call its pretty darn reasonable to believe it came from one of those boats.
Is there some remote possibility it was someone else? Sure. But as our friend Occam might have said: if you hear hoofbeats, think horses not zebras.
This is pure spin.
Sure, they probably can’t establish exactly were the radio signal came from, but what’s the probability of the boats being there, them dropping things into the water, the radio transmission happening at the time it did, in that place, in that language......?
The fact that they can’t locate the source 100% does not reduce the significance of the transmission; it simply does not add that additional incriminating (for a lack of better words) aspect to it. The media loves to distort. The Commander is not retracting or changing any aspect of the events as they unfolded. He’s simply stating a technical fact; in this case he was not able to direction find the source of the emission. Does that change anything?
Think about it this way. An analogy- A person is murdered at an ATM. The culprit is caught. We have DNA, motive, witnesses, a functional timeline, a sworn confession; BUT, the camera on the ATM did not get a picture of the murderer. Does not having a face shot of the murderer equate to the police not having a case? Does the chief of police stating to the media that he didn’t get a camera shot mean he’s changing his story? Does that cast doubt about what happened?
Key phrase in this article: “casting doubt on the earlier US version of Sunday’s confrontation.”
No it doesn’t. Only in the mind of some idiot that wants to interpret it that way.
Click on pic for past Navair pings.
Post or FReepmail me if you wish to be enlisted in or discharged from the Navair Pinglist.
This is a medium to low volume pinglist.
.
I’d have thought we’d have aircraft and satellite tracking info to tell us where they put into port (or if they rendezvoused with another ship).
VVVVVVvvvvvvvRRRRRRiiiiiiiiippppppp!
How many boats were there? Sheesh.
Who did that?
What happened with the boxes?
It was reported that the speedboats threw out some unidentified boxes.
Did our guys retrieve them and see what they were?
I haven’t seen this mentioned since the incident.
Just by posting the above quote I have covered 1/3 of the entire article.
No offense but if this is a valid story it would be nice to have an article that has some meat to it. Who is Lt. John Gay? What is his position within the navy hierarchy? Etc.
Maybe it was the Trunk Monkey.
Maybe it was Greenpeace masquerading as Iranians.
The US Navy never clained that the sinister message came from the boats. It stated that there was no way to establish this, The message could have come from a shore radio, according to the Navy.
It was the media that the sinister message came from the boats.
Regardless of from where the sinisr transmission was broadcast, it is stretching credulity beyond all reason to think that the message and the presence of harrassing small craft was coincidental.
AFP is spinning the story when it claims that the credibility of the Navy has been trrown into doubt by a supposed change in its version of the events.
Absolute nonsense. It is very, very easy to determine the direction of a broadcast signal with the proper equipment. Air Traffic Control has been using a method called a "DF Steer" for about 70 years....