User Profile: HI_Don


Member Since: January 23, 2012


123 To page: Go
  • [6] August 30, 2014 at 3:41pm

    Hey, I know it is a stretch, but who says a Kurdish ship is currently under the control of a Kurdish crew, that is all I’m saying, we don’t know. We didn’t board her, we only know who owns it. But then who would have thought terrorists were piloting planes headed for New York, after all, they were American Planes?

    And as far as the Coast Guard not being able to find the ship – obviously you have never participated in being a part of searching a large body of ocean for a ship. Did that for 25 years and you would be surprised how hard it can be. Like looking for a single elephant in the expanse of Africa. They are so big, how could you not see it right? Well the size of the ship vs the size of the body of water and the size of the search pattern all makes it a significant challenge, especially if they don’t want to be found.

  • [9] August 30, 2014 at 4:52am

    No disrespect intended to your opinion, I’m just trying to substantiate my opinion. FYI, since it is not mentioned in the article, the ship’s track shows that what the article called “hovering off the coast” was in fact over 100 nmi off the coast. There is no mention anywhere of any sea assets shadowing the oiler, which would be required since Coast Guard or other standard shipping have a much shorter range than the coastal radar. It would be near impossible, or at least impractical, to dedicate air assets to monitor the ship continuously, and as it does not appear they feel this ship was a threat, why would they? Again, these are more details that I point to that made me call this a poor story, missing details and jumping to conclusions. My point, you have two middle eastern ships both practicing deception around our coast. Perhaps they are just offloading embargoed fuel. But it would seem we don’t know where they are going, who is paying them, or for sure who is on them. it would be way too easy to put a small boat and weapons along with an elite assassin team on the oiler. When I say small boat, that could be anything from a good sized fishing boat to a zodiac and either could be equipped for enough longevity to reach the coast and either could easily escape radar long enough to mix in with local traffic and go unnoticed all the way to the coast. We can’t have a ship intentionally going invisible 100 miles off our coast and have any sense of security.

  • [4] August 30, 2014 at 4:28am

    To the comment on Air Radar and monitoring planes, you are absolutely right. But my comment was not on air traffic in general, it was based on the Malaysian flight and the location where it was flying where there is no air radar coverage for COMMERCIAL air control. The U.S. has the capacity for near continuous coverage because we have so many airports working in cooperation to follow the flights from location to location within the U.S. so we back up the transponder data with our own monitoring radar. Other developed countries do the same. The transponder version of tracking is much cheaper, much easier, and has about twice the range because it is a one way transmission from the plane to the receiver. Active radar has approximately half the potential range (power level and other things not withstanding) because it must go out, reflect off the target and then have the strength to return back to the receiver and be strong enough to be interpreted by the system/operator. AIS on ships is similar – it works long range, is precisely accurate, but is controlled by the target, not the receiver. If they turn it off, you have nothing unless you can resort to your own active radar search. Looking for a ship on the water, compared to a plane in the sky is vastly more difficult as you correctly pointed out due to the curvature of the earth combined with weather, wave heights and other attenuation factors.

  • [3] August 30, 2014 at 4:19am

    Well spfoam1,
    I’ll tell you what it means to me. First, yes I am very aware of our radar stations and their capabilities which I won’t get into great detail here because I think it inappropriate when we have organizations trying to exploit our weaknesses. Suffice it to say that land base radar is for coastal defense, not for navigation control, thus my comment about let’s hope the military knows where the ship is (by radar) but is not commenting on the HHS traffic control story of losing the ship on AIS. Now, since the first ship was full, was lost, and then showed up later back in the middle east empty would we not have to assume it did NOT approach the U.S. coast, but went to somewhere like Mexico to offload since it was “lost on radar” ie, where abouts unknown/ moved away from the coast and turned of AIS? On the other hand this second ship’s last location is in the middle of the gulf. At that point they could send assets out to check on the ship (air or vessel) but they are not holding it on Radar, thus it cannot be lost on radar. When the ship turned off AIS, it was lost on AIS. If it makes a move toward the coast I’d bet we would GAIN it on radar. But if it releases a small vessel like a long range zodiac (would have to be carrying a lot of fuel) that would be small enough to escape radar detection unless they know where to look specifically. Thus, they knew it was “hovering near the coast” because it was on AIS.

  • [18] August 29, 2014 at 11:02pm

    Well let me check. Nope read it twice and stand by what I wrote. The story is misinterpreting data, misrepresenting issues due to a lack of understanding of what they were told. Hence, bad journalism, writing from what you do not understand. I stand by what I said, the ship did not “fall off radar” because it wasn’t being tracked by radar -it was being tracked via AIS, as are ALL Merchant traffic now. Similar to what happened with the Malaysia missing flight that “fell off radar” it wasn’t being tracked by the air controllers on radar – it was on the aviation version of AIS, using the planes transponders. When the transponders were shut off, they lost the planes tracking. It wasn’t until they searched military systems and other sources that they were able to find some radar images. AIS is not radar.

  • [164] August 29, 2014 at 9:06pm

    Again bad journalism. The ship did not disappear, nor did it disappear off radar. AIS is a tracking system based on cooperative targets. The ship is the transponder, and the tracking stations get information from the ship’s system passively (they don’t search, they listen). The ship disappeared from AIS. There is no indication anything happened to the ship. No Oil spill, no distress signal etc and the AIS has been off for three days now.

    Thus, the ship is trying to hide. It is from Bagdad. As far as I know it has not been boarded or searched by our Coast Guard yet as it had just approached our waters. Certainly the previous ship could have been a test run. Get close, turn off AIS, check response, and unload in Mexico. But what if now this one is trying to do a drive by and offload Special Forces ISIS unit to zodiac to shore?

    This is really really not a good thing. If our Navy and / or our Coast guard are not watching this ship using active search capacities including satellite, we are in very big trouble. Hopefully we know exactly what they are doing and just don’t want them to know we know.

    Responses (14) +
  • [96] August 29, 2014 at 8:48pm

    Coming from Bagdad, do you suppose they might drop off anything other than just oil near Mexico? Is this more of our wonderful and cooperative relationship we have with Mexico that the administration is bragging about? Since this is the second ship full of oil to turn off their AIS when they got near the coast do you suppose we could have gotten our Navy assets to monitor the thing and watch where it goes?

    ISIS is here folks, and this September 11th I’m unfortunately predicting something very bad happens. I really hope I’m wrong, but this looks very bad. We ought to put our POTUS and his administration on notice now. You fail us again, and the people are going to rise up and take back our house.

    Responses (2) +
  • [590] August 29, 2014 at 8:19pm

    Hey! It ONLY took FIVE months for a White House Response. Even after reaching the 100,000 signature requirement over two months ago.

    Please compare that to:
    The police acted stupidly response time
    The Travon could have been my son response time
    The Sandra Fluke has birth control rights response time
    The please release the White House Beer recipe response time
    The response time between sorry Mr. Foley is dead and hand me my driver response time.

    Five months. What an efficient and prioritized administration we have here. At this rate with a simple response statement taking five months, I figure the Marine might be out in time to collect social security.

    Responses (11) +
  • [29] August 29, 2014 at 7:43pm

    FishKiller -

    That’s great. Gives me an idea for the next one. As soon as they get you on the line, start banging away on your keyboard loud enough so you know they can hear the clicking in the background. Keep them on the line asking questions as long as you can. Then, after a while ask them “I’m sorry I have another call on a different phone can you hold just a second?” Then take the phone slightly away from your mouth and pretend to speak to someone else. “Yea, I’ve got the call located and forwarded the coordinates. How long till you can get a preditor drone over the location? Is it armed and do we have clearance? O.K. I’ll try to keep them talking a bit longer”
    Then go back to the phone with “I’m sorry now what were you saying?” Bet the line is dead at that point.

  • [2] August 29, 2014 at 7:34pm

    FLHX – I must make one correction to you post. Acorn in no way requires a pulse to register to vote. In fact I think they find it easier without one.

  • [6] August 29, 2014 at 7:29pm

    “The bundle of cells she once was had no personality at the time when she might have been aborted. There was nothing to love there at that time.” Abortion, Dawkins argued, isn’t “killing a loved child” that is capable of pain and suffering.”

    Sorry, but the first pregnancy test that detects Down’s Syndrome works at 12 weeks (between 11 weeks and 13 weeks plus six days pregnant) at which time the fetus has already become a tiny human looking entity complete with fingers, toes, and yes – a full nervous system. While it has a lot of growing to do especially in the respiratory category, it is quite capable of pain and will demonstrate such with stimulus reactions. So, if you test for Downs, wait for the results, consider the options, choose abortion, schedule the procedure and eventually carry out that death sentence on your unborn – hardly a bunch of cells incapable of pain and suffering. If only they were not locked in a water filled world where we can’t hear them scream. Then perhaps people would realize what they are doing. Life is sacred. It is not yours to choose to terminate any more than it is when that individual exits the womb. Why is it less of a person just because of location? It is a child when you hold it in your arms, but a group of meaningless cells when you hold it in your tummy? Only a hypocrite can believe that.

  • [4] August 29, 2014 at 7:07pm

    Did anyone think to ask the great con man HOW? Is it because Texas took things into their own hands that the numbers are down? Is it because the illegals got scared of the ISIS camp just on the Mexican side? Is it because the train was shut down? Is it because Mexico was afraid they were going to get stuck with these people from South America when Texas threatened to stop them so Mexico put the brakes on the flow?
    And OVER? As in you did something that will prevent it from happening again? Did you build even a foot more fence? Did you place even one more agent on site (no, not Texas, did you the feds help at all?)
    It isn’t over. More likely it is just a pause, a glitch. Or more likely still nothing has changed except your desire to get us to look away so you can go right back at it.

  • August 29, 2014 at 6:57pm

    COSMS, I wish I could give you a dozen thumbs for that!

    If ever there was a NAG spokesman, it’s Hillary.

  • [13] August 29, 2014 at 6:51pm

    You can scam Obamazombies easily, however it is very unproductive. All they can give you is a phone or a countersigned welfare check which is too difficult to transfer to cash to be worth anything. Unless of course you are refering to ObamaCronies. Now those are dumb AND wealthy.

  • August 29, 2014 at 6:47pm

  • [33] August 29, 2014 at 6:43pm

    My favorite though was my grandmother’s response to a scam call. She said “Oh, that’s great. Just a minute please I want to tell my husband, hold on” She then opened her junk drawer next to the phone, pulled out a police whistle and blew it into the phone at full force before hanging up the call.

    Loved that woman. R.I.P.

  • [96] August 29, 2014 at 6:39pm

    I got a call not long ago from a guy calling himself “Justin” who said he was with Publishers Clearing House and wanted to confirm that I was the winner of their grand prize. Since I never buy anything from PCH, nor do I buy magazines, nor do I enter any of their contests, and because I was of course suspicious that the phone caller ID was out of country AND his heavy accent and poor English, well I interrupted his canned speech of congratulations and said “NO, NO, wait a minute, no you’re not. You’re not scamming me. This isn’t what you say it is and I know it.”

    To which I received the most vile and poorly pronounced foul diatribe of expletives I have ever heard before (and I was in the Navy for 25 years).

    Boy, they really are thin skinned those scammers. Probably hard dealing with all the rejection all day until you finally land that rare fish known as gullible.

    Responses (11) +
  • [11] August 29, 2014 at 6:31pm

    Who? Evidently 1,000 people that collectively had $5 million in bank accounts ready to steal. That means they got an average of $5,000 per person. As they say, there is a sucker born every day.

  • [1] August 29, 2014 at 5:52pm

    Elections have consequences! We had a vote and now it is my way or the highway. If the people want a change, they can express that during the next school board election cycle. (Oh wait, those arguments are reserved for when the liberals cheat their way into having their way in order to lock out the conservative legitimate procedural moves. In this case the proper strategy is vote, vote, and vote again until you get your way and if you still don’t get your way, then just get a court to rule your way or a higher politician to decree it.)

  • August 29, 2014 at 5:40pm

    Well, there’s another creepy guy who definitely could be associated with the ol’ chubby statement. You could well be right and she threw in the “in congress” reference just to throw off the inquiring minds. After all, we all know how Bill said it wasn’t IN the Whitehouse and it depends on what IS means. So perhaps it was IN congress but now with someone IN congress.

123 To page: Go