Duke
Senior Member.
It can happen, if the system that received maintenance is used at night. An example might be a particular system that has to be NVG compatible to be mission capable.
Baltic Pipeline Discussion (Current Events)
- Thread starter Mendel
- Start date
So no, you don't have any direct evidence.
Duke
Senior Member.
Of what?
deirdre
Senior Member.
of why the P-8s were actually out there.
Exactly, or any direct evidence of pipeline sabotage.
Duke
Senior Member.
No more direct evidence than they were on an FCF as speculated in the post I responded to.
deirdre
Senior Member.
can you try to type for laymen. i think when you type a/c that means aircraft, but only because ive put you in context from other threads.
whats FCF?
Duke
Senior Member.
Functional Check Flight, the correct term (at least in the United States Department of Defense) for what Landau speculated about. I thought I was typing for the layman when I explained what it was, without speculating whether it was or wasn't a Functional Check Flight.
That is not really what Metabunk is about. As I stated, there is too much speculation in this thread.
deirdre
Senior Member.
thanks. i couldnt figure out what the extra F was. i guessed the other two letters right though.
Mendel
Senior Member.
Why did you bring up the check flight then?
We have a claim of evidence, i.e. that a US P-8 was in the area that night, and that this proves US involvement. Properly sourced and quoted.
We've been analysing that claim. Reuters corroborated some of the evidence (but says the flight originated in Iceland). We've been examining the time and place. We've talked about possible reasons why the aircraft might be there, supporting them with evidence (such as the weapons loadout). I have asked whether it is common for P-8s to fly night missions on the Baltic sea on sabotage-free nights, but we don't have data on that yet.
This is not dissimilar to how we analyse low information UFO claims; a conclusion of "probably a bug" tends to not be more than a reasoned speculation either.
qed
Senior Member
Have you proof that if US P-8 was in the area then US was involved in blowing up the pipeline.
[... in other words, there is no other rational reason the US P-8 could be in the area other than involvement in blowing up the pipeline ...]
Last edited:
qed
Senior Member
Mendel
Senior Member.
We have a claim, properly sourced and documented, in posts https://www.metabunk.org/threads/baltic-pipeline-discussion.12685/post-281195 and https://www.metabunk.org/threads/baltic-pipeline-discussion.12685/post-281210 .
My claim is that we have a claim, but that claim that we have is not my claim. It is normal procedure on metabunk to examine other people's claims of evidence.
monkeywerxus claimed that the P8 flight shows US involvement in the sabotage.
I am discussing this claim, looking for bunk.
Last edited:
qed
Senior Member
What is that claim?
Is your claim 1. or 2. of the following?
- That a US P-8 was in the area that night.
- That a US P-8 was in the area that night, and that this proves US involvement.
They are very different!
Mendel
Senior Member.
I've amended my previous post, sorry.
But it's also clearly stated in my earlier post, note the second "that" (emphasis added):
Or you could've looked at the claim itself, via the links I provided.
Last edited:
Mendel
Senior Member.
Last edited:
qed
Senior Member
I see no amendments to your claim you presented to @Landru.
And you have provided us no clarity, by refusing to answer if you mean claim 1. or claim 2.
- That a US P-8 was in the area that night.
- That a US P-8 was in the area that night, and that this proves US involvement.
- What do you claim?
[... if you mean something like 1., then I think you would have no problem clarifying for us ...]
Last edited:
qed
Senior Member
To close this ramble.
The claim "that a US P-8 was in the area that night" has evidence, which we should try to prove or debunk. MetaBunk worthy.
The claim "that this proves US involvement" has no evidence, hence is pure speculation, hence is not MetaBunk worthy. Hence @Landru's warning to @Mendel.
"The USA Did It" is currently a growing conspiracy theory. Let us, here on MetaBunk, not play into the conspiracy theorists' hands by speculating.
The claim "that a US P-8 was in the area that night" has evidence, which we should try to prove or debunk. MetaBunk worthy.
The claim "that this proves US involvement" has no evidence, hence is pure speculation, hence is not MetaBunk worthy. Hence @Landru's warning to @Mendel.
"The USA Did It" is currently a growing conspiracy theory. Let us, here on MetaBunk, not play into the conspiracy theorists' hands by speculating.
Last edited:
At present, there is no direct evidence to support that assertion. Until there is I don't know what there is to debunk.
https://www.reuters.com/business/en...tic-hours-after-nord-stream-burst-2022-10-07/
The latter orbital flight appears to be where the majority of the flight time was spent.
deirdre
Senior Member.
that's not accurate, 'these barrels prove chemtrails' IS what MB does. what it strives not to do is 'the barrels could be a cargo of fish' 'the barrels could be smuggling heroin' 'the barrels could be air filled flotation devices they are going to drop off to a sinking cabin cruiser'.
His warning was directed to everybody. He spoke to Duke, but he meant everybody.
1. this topic is not the same as UFOs (a fluff topic)
2. If you say 'probably a bug' youre supposed to provide video evidence of little bugs that match.
Last edited:
captancourgette
Active Member
WRT to the US plane surely one should check whats the likelihood of a US military plane being in that region at any given moment, I assume esp at this time the chances are quite high.
Keep in mind I heard a lot of the US military planes went 'dark' a few days ago
Keep in mind I heard a lot of the US military planes went 'dark' a few days ago
Evidence?
qed
Senior Member
Last edited:
Duke
Senior Member.
I've been watching Flightradar24 and ADSBexchange regularly for aircraft movements in that region since a couple weeks before the Russian invasion. At any one time there have been multiple United States (US)/North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) aircraft present, both over international waters (Black Sea) and in the airspace of NATO nations (Poland, Romania, Turkey, etc). I've seen no NATO fighters or bombers, a few cargo/transport aircraft (primarily C-130s and C-17s), but significant numbers of Intelligence/Reconnaissance/Surveillance (ISR) aircraft, including E-3, RC-135, EC-135, EC-130, E-8, RC-12, and, of course P-8. There are also usually "on call" tankers such as the KC-135 and KC-10 flying tanker tracks in NATO airspace in case they are needed.
Each of those ISR aircraft has a specific function....signals intelligence, voice intercept, photography/imagery, maritime surveillance, airborne early warning and airspace management, battlefield management/surveillance, electronic warfare (EW), etc. There is some overlap of capabilities with different platforms, but primarily each has a specific capability/mission.
As LilWabbit patiently tried to explain a few days back, the goal of intelligence gathering is to present as much of an accurate, big picture of tactical (and/or strategic) circumstances to decision makers as possible. Seldom, if ever, is it cut and dried. Intelligence analysis produces a situational mosiac where the overall actionable knowledge gained is (hopefully) greater than the sum of the components of that mosiac. Those individual components, by the way, include other sources such as satellite data, individuals on the ground, and yes, ever rumors and speculation.
Decision makers have to interpret what they think they know, and decide how they will act (or not.) It's not an exact science, it's a function of making the best decisions you can with the best information you have available at the time.
[h4][/h4]
Last edited:
deirdre
Senior Member.
you just saying so isn't evidence of anything.
add: and why were you watching that area a couple of weeks before the invasion?
Last edited:
deirdre
Senior Member.
i would say the Monkey guy (post 144) words it more like "the USA was
involved.Article: very likely
only in very general terms. the Monkey guy made very specific claims about what the plane did and what the flight path and altitude etc shows. I cant help you too much because i cant convert different time zone times in my head and the flight path shown by Reuters is different from the one this guy shows...i'm not interested enough to figure out which flight path is correct.
you can go through and prove or debunk his specific claims. ex 1 of his specific claims
Article: note the little hump just before the climb out (red arrow). That is consistent with a weapons release. Pitch down, increased AoA, weapon release, little bubble up, then a climb out (the blue line is the inbound leg of the same flight).
Maybe some of these claims were addressed specifically in this thread, but since the left brained oriented members don't write for an outside audience (or me) i have no idea if they debunked any of the article parts or not.
Duke
Senior Member.
Wasn't presenting evidence or even speculating, I was responding to the Captain's post about the likelihood of a US military aircraft being in that region at a given moment. Explaining the types and missions of those types was typing for the layman.
add: Because there were differences of opinion among various governments and pundits, as well as denials from the Russians, about whether there was going to be an invasion. I was looking for increased aerial activity on the part of the Russia military, as well as whether NATO was ramping up capability in anticipation of Russian military action. No for the fomer, yes for NATO for the latter in the form of ISR aircraft activity (including drones which I failed to mention in my previous post.)
Last edited:
deirdre
Senior Member.
yes i appreciate the laymen language. thank you.
you gave anecdotal evidence that us military aircraft in the area is common.
Duke
Senior Member.
You're free to go back and look at the global flight tracking apps mentioned over the last several months if you'd like to convince yourself. Or not.
deirdre
Senior Member.
I'm just reminding readers that just because someone says something, does not necessarily mean it is true. This applies to conspiracy theorists certainly, but also debunkers.
ex Monkeyboy said
Article: Here are a few facts about the sabotage:
1. Biden said we were going to do it
But no, Biden did not say we were going to sabotage the pipeline.
Duke
Senior Member.
Good job. Of course I neither espoused a conspiracy theory or debunked anything, I was explaining to those without a military background how the process works and what parts are involved. I find knowing how and why something happens the way it does is useful in critical thinking.
But since you brought it up, in the future when I'm looking at the tracking apps and see US/NATO aircraft in the region, I'll take a a screenshot and post it in this thread.
LilWabbit
Senior Member
Like you articulated so well, ISR (intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance) is a broader inter-disciplinary function embedded in the core organization of most modern militaries. While it bears some parallels to the scientific process and observes significant rigour in generating high-quality knowledge products, it should not to be equated nor confused with the latter owing to very different operational goals. Namely, to support military decision-making on strategic, operational and tactical levels. Due to the time-critical nature of military intelligence products, 'a reasonable certainty' rather than a high standard of scientific certainty based on a rigorous hermeneutical process of tests and theory-refinement, has to often make do for commanders to make the next move.
To put it more plainly, most decision-makers at the highest levels of government, as well as within the military establishments, of most European nations, entertain little doubt as to who's the main culprit. Based on what they already know, they already know enough. They need not wait for the Swedish Security Police (SÄPO) to finish its investigation (which, by the way, is based on international intelligence-sharing rather than just local Swedish resources) to have a pretty good idea about who did it.
As per the above, it maybe worthwhile for all the posters to call to mind, especially those far away from the European theatre, that whatever our political leanings and whoever our pet superpowers be, even this seemingly isolated matter of a pipeline sabotage is an outgrowth of a ruthless war that's claiming innocent lives even as we speak. It's a crisis that, at its current juncture, risks escalation into a catastrophic international conflagration.
Therefore those of you who wish to indulge in the fringe geekery aspect of the pipeline sabotage in the name of MB guidelines, go for it. Explore the seemingly more outlandish and conspiracy-theoretical claim of the US being the saboteur. It's a claim which Russia is more than happy for all of the world to knock themselves out speculating on while feeling legitimized as a result to pursue its aggressions. The very idea that Biden was at the helm of the sabotage whets the appetite of his domestic adversaries as well and hence, unsurprisingly, the fodder that Russia has fed is being greedily chomped up on the other side of the pond.
But I will opt out from such indulgence into our usual MB geekery on a matter that, for me, is neither fringe nor just another fun academic indulgence. For me it doesn't really respect the seriousness of the situation even if its outcome is to successfully debunk the CT.
Thank you if you took this in the well-meaning spirit it was intended. And apologies that I didn't offer, and in fact refuse to offer, 'evidence' in support of all the claims made in this post.
Mendel
Senior Member.
The difference is the period where the aircraft went dark and the data is missing. On the Reuters map, there's a hole in the flight path, i.e. there's a path for "coming" and a path for "going" and a hole in-between. On the 3D map, the ends are connected with a long straight line. It's the same data, though.
The "weapons release" is implausible because none of the seismographically detected explosions occurred when the P-8 was over the Baltic Sea. Therefore, the P-8 couldn't have caused the explosion. That's why @Duke suggested a different possible role.
