Baltic Pipeline Discussion (Current Events)

LilWabbit

Senior Member
Anyone who really knows about the subject would steer clear.

Tacit self-aggrandizing is hardly polite nor necessary. @Duke has said nothing compromising. Nowhere near.

Here, you cannot state "I know because I know."

Where did @Duke state so? Whereas your statement "anyone who really knows about the subject" is a passive-aggressive way of saying precisely 'I know because I know'. Never throw stones from a glass house.

Do you have any evidence to support your claims?

Do you have any for your claim 'Anyone who really knows about the subject would steer clear'? As you can see, any discussion is entirely derailed and subsequently killed if every sentence that technically qualifies as a claim needs to be backed up by evidence.

The Baltic is not a gas station parking lot under constant surveillance even with collection systems overhead.

Where did @Duke claim it was?

@Mick West, if moderation keeps on snarkily descending on rather harmless comments offering useful analysis in a general discussion thread by insisting evidence on every single sentence that even smacks as a claim, how is it possible to carry on any productive conversation here?

This has been happening quite often. And it's toxic. And @deirdre, you're not helping. Not good for MB's image and purpose as a platform.
 

Duke

Active Member
are you Q? i ask because Q claims to be some government guy "in the know" too.
*lol* No, sorry to disappoint you. You can call me "D" if you like, however.

It is common knowledge you shield classified items/systems from satellites. The key is to know which satellites to be concerned about, as Laudau is undoubtedly aware based on his personal experience and background in the field. It's that capability that can be classified.

As I said previously, satellite orbits/locations are tracked, that information is used here to debunk UFOs.
 
Last edited:

Landru

Moderator
Staff member
Where did @Duke state so? Whereas your statement "anyone who really knows about the subject" is a passive-aggressive way of saying precisely 'I know because I know'. Never throw stones from a glass house.
He said it here.

I've said nothing classified, and comments were based on personal experience and background.
You are quite correct. Any comments made by me from a position of claimed authority without evidence should be disregarded. Just as such comments from anyone.
 

Landru

Moderator
Staff member
Are you seriously equating that statement with "I know because I know"? On what logical basis? You're seeing attitude where I see simply a factual statement.
I am dismissing an Appeal to Authority argument with an Appeal to Authority argument. I would be happy to cede the discussion to arguments supported by evidence.
 

LilWabbit

Senior Member
I am dismissing an Appeal to Authority argument with an Appeal to Authority argument. I would be happy to cede the discussion to arguments supported by evidence.

No.

(1) @Duke got lambasted by you for not providing evidence for his general comments which you interpreted as claiming something which I'm not at all sure he did.

(2) In response to being suddenly called out for rather harmless comments, he explained what his comments were based on (his own experience and background) without any implication that others must accept them on the basis of his experience and background (i.e. there was no appeal to authority).

(3) In response, you appealed to your authority while making a claim unsupported by evidence.

This is not a helpful way to moderate discussion. A moderator must practice what he preaches and not act in impunity. The only attitude that I've seen here thus far is yours and mine. Mine is in direct response to yours.
 

Landru

Moderator
Staff member
No.

(1) @Duke got lambasted by you for not providing evidence for his general comments which you interpreted as claiming something which I'm not at all sure he did.

(2) In response to being suddenly called out for rather harmless comments, he explained what his comments were based on (his own experience and background) without any implication that others must accept them on the basis of his experience and background (i.e. there was no appeal to authority).

(3) In response, you appealed to your authority while making a claim unsupported by evidence.

This is not a helpful way to moderate discussion. A moderator must practice what he preaches and not act in impunity. The only attitude that I've seen here thus far is yours and mine. Mine is in direct response to yours.
Why can't you accept my input based on my experience and background? Hint, you shouldn't. Use evidence.
 

LilWabbit

Senior Member
Why can't you accept my input based on my experience and background? Hint, you shouldn't. Use evidence.

I didn't. To repeat point #2: @Duke didn't appeal to authority. You did, whilst scolding him for it. You read into his statement and misinterpreted it as an appeal to authority. Your interpretation of @Duke's appeal to authority is based on no evidence in his actual statement.

Own up to misjudging or at least jumping into conclusions based on very little. Then we can move on from this derail and metadiscussion.
 

Landru

Moderator
Staff member
I didn't. To repeat point #2: @Duke didn't appeal to authority. You did, whilst scolding him for it. You read into his statement and misinterpreted it as an appeal to authority. Your interpretation of @Duke's appeal to authority is based on no evidence in his actual statement.

Own up to misjudging or at least jumping into conclusions based on very little. Then we can move on from this derail and metadiscussion.
The statement "comments were based on personal experience and background." is an appeal to authority with himself as the apparent expert.
 

LilWabbit

Senior Member
The statement "comments were based on personal experience and background." is an appeal to authority with himself as the apparent expert.

It's merely a statement of explaining what his comments were based on in response to your insistence for evidence. That's all that the comment factually is. Appeal to authority is your interpretation based on your own assumptions and imaginations. If you can't see your claim on @Duke's appeal to authority is a claim that is not based on evidence (inductive reasoning), who are you then to keep scolding others for poor evidence?

Appeal to authority means @Duke was expecting others must give his comments a special status due to his experience and background. @Duke, is that what you're asking? That's not something you can conclude from his very terse comment.
 

Duke

Active Member
The statement "comments were based on personal experience and background." is an appeal to authority with himself as the apparent expert.
I was an expert in the systems I was testing (not a topic here), the "experience" was learning from and complying with direction of experts in the field of space based intelligence gathering. No different than saying I learned from and complied with a plumber who told me not to flush sanitary products.
 

Landru

Moderator
Staff member
I was an expert in the systems I was testing (not a topic here), the "experience" was learning from and complying with direction of experts in the field of space based intelligence gathering. No different than saying I learned from and complied with a plumber who told me not to flush sanitary products.
Which is the definition of Appeal to Authority.

https://writingcenter.unc.edu/tips-and-tools/fallacies/

Appeal to authority​

Definition: Often we add strength to our arguments by referring to respected sources or authorities and explaining their positions on the issues we’re discussing. If, however, we try to get readers to agree with us simply by impressing them with a famous name or by appealing to a supposed authority who really isn’t much of an expert, we commit the fallacy of appeal to authority.
 

LilWabbit

Senior Member
Which is the definition of Appeal to Authority.

https://writingcenter.unc.edu/tips-and-tools/fallacies/

Only if @Duke's statement fulfils this criterion in your citation:

If, however, we try to get readers to agree with us simply by impressing them with a famous name or by appealing to a supposed authority who really isn’t much of an expert, we commit the fallacy of appeal to authority.

Please demonstrate how @Duke is 'trying to get readers to agree with him by appealing to his authority although he really isn't much of an expert' with his statements. Until you do, you're only making a claim based on your own feelings lacking in evidence. You're adding content to a statement that has less.
 

LilWabbit

Senior Member
If it is a fact then you should be able to support it with evidence.

Since when are we supposed to publicize our CVs here when another one doubts their background? Duke already said he wasn't trying to convince anyone on anything by responding to your question by explaining his background. You're being unreasonable and unfair.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
People can share their experience - that's often useful and interesting perspective. Take it or leave it.

This is page 7. Almost nobody from outside reads past page 1. If you really want to discuss semantics, then you might want to consider taking to a PM with the three interested parties. If there's an interesting meta-point about arguments from authority, then maybe a new thread. But this is the thread about the Baltic pipeline.
 

LilWabbit

Senior Member
I'm saying CVs shouldn't be a part of the discussion. Evidence is the coin of the realm here.

Which you haven't provided for your claim that Duke was appealing to authority. Nor have you accepted him directly stating that to you. Now would be a good time to demonstrate some grace and honour to own up to your side and stop this discussion which makes a mockery of all politeness guidelines at MB and the MB by extension.
 

LilWabbit

Senior Member
I will end it here. My experience in this field (as I stated above) contradicts Dukes.

So let's get back to the topic then. What, in your experience, contradicts Duke as regards his comments? Citing the exact comment would help the reader to judge for themselves as to the nature of the contradiction.

Without any snark I will state that your experience on the issue is of interest to me.
 

Landru

Moderator
Staff member
So let's get back to the topic then. What, in your experience, contradicts Duke as regards his comments? Citing the exact comment would help the reader to judge for themselves as to the nature of the contradiction.

Without any snark I will state that your experience on the issue is of interest to me.
The Baltic Sea (open water area) is not an area that receives constant attention. Not just because the satellites are not overhead.
 

LilWabbit

Senior Member
The Baltic Sea (open water area) is not an area that receives constant attention.

It doesn't need to be in order to spot the two vessels SpaceKnow did. From the Wired article linked by @Duke:

Article:
To detect the ships, Javornicky says, the company scoured 90 days of archived satellite images for the area. The company analyzes images from multiple satellite systems—including paid and free services—and uses machine learning to detect objects within them. This includes the ability to monitor roads, buildings, and changes in landscapes. "We have 38 specific algorithms that can detect military equipment," Javornicky says, adding that SpaceKnow’s system can detect specific models of aircraft on landing strips.


I didn't see Duke claim anything that contradicts what you wrote. But maybe I misread. If so, please demonstrate.
 

DavidB66

Senior Member
The Baltic Sea (open water area) is not an area that receives constant attention. Not just because the satellites are not overhead.
Never mind the satellites: the Baltic Sea is surrounded by 10 of the wealthiest and most technologically advanced countries in the world, several of which have large military and intelligence capacity. As seas go, the Baltic is not very large or deep. Whether it is 'open water' is a matter of definition. At the western end, the passage from the Baltic to the North (German) Sea is almost completely blocked by islands (part of Denmark) with only two fairly narrow channels for sea traffic. Both of these are spanned by a combination of bridges and tunnels, leaving only a few miles of 'open' water. It is extremely unlikely that any large surface Navy vessel could sail through these passages without attracting attention. At the eastern end, there is of course a coastal area of Russia, and the Russian exclave of Kaliningrad, with a large naval base. Ships coming from the St Petersburg coastal area would have to pass through the Gulf of Finland, which is quite a long and narrow channel, with a high risk of detection. Kaliningrad has more open access to the main area of the Sea.
Of course there is also the possibility of operations by submarines or small 'special ops' boats launched from anywhere around the coast.
 

purpleivan

Active Member
I will end it here. My experience in this field (as I stated above) contradicts Dukes.
But unless your experience is certified somewhere, I'll ignore your experience based statement (along with Dukes) and therefore your statement (and Duke's I guess as well)... following your own recommendation.

This argument here is getting utterly circular. I for one would appreciate a return to a discussion of the salient facts.
 

captancourgette

Active Member
In this case, the fact the ships were "dark" means whatever mission they were on was being undertaken clandestinely. Having been in a position to have had their photos taken from the "multiple satellites" used by SpaceKnow might indicate the mission took longer than planned, leaving them compromised from on high and potentially visually identifiable.
I thought 'dark' meant they turned off their GPS/or whatever indicator of their position they have, we dont have the tech to do a star trek cloaking device just yet so you cant be seen. What I meant in my post was by turning their GPS thing off thats gonna call more attention to you from the ppl monitoring, thus its unlikely to be done if you really wanted to do it clandestine, esp with a friggen 100m boat, now that aint a boat its a friggen football field sized ship (*). Now I said walking down the road with my hands in my pockets whistling, But A better example by going dark is pulling out and wearing a balaclava, i.e. if ppl were ignoring you before as being nondescript, now certainly all eyes are on you, you have just drawn attention by 'going dark'.

(*)disclosure - But what do I know Im an unqualified kiwi guy living in barcelona, who has had over 100 jobs (not sure I would guess ~300 jobs I've had though only fired like 5 times), but never worked in 'intelligence' in fact usually the opposite. Actually now I think about it, I dont think I've ever had a government job in the slightest, counting local government also (like working in library) currently working on a videogame 80+ hours a week, though today had to babysit my child, so day off, first in months .. so nice , big UPs to parents all over, I must ring my parents and thank them
 

captancourgette

Active Member
Sharing a small room with these two sweaty guys? Not my favourite pipedream.
So its part of a pipedream, we can work with that

some candles, right music & lighting
...
...
and booze
Yeah it could work
everything works with booze (russian motto), Does putin drink? I don't think so (Im not actually sure, Never saw any photos of him doing this ) Hitler/Trump didnt drink, whilst Im not advocating booze I think in certain situations perhaps its good because it allows you to step outside your body for some hours and think, 'should I really be doing this course of action?'
 

Duke

Active Member
I thought 'dark' meant they turned off their GPS/or whatever indicator of their position they have,
Yes

we dont have the tech to do a star trek cloaking device just yet so you cant be seen. What I meant in my post was by turning their GPS thing off thats gonna call more attention to you from the ppl monitoring, thus its unlikely to be done if you really wanted to do it clandestine, esp with a friggen 100m boat, now that aint a boat its a friggen football field sized ship (*). Now I said walking down the road with my hands in my pockets whistling, But A better example by going dark is pulling out and wearing a balaclava, i.e. if ppl were ignoring you before as being nondescript, now certainly all eyes are on you, you have just drawn attention by 'going dark'.
Tactics are up to the party who sent the ships into area. If the report from SpaceKnow is correct, the responsible party disagrees with you. They probably felt disabling their transponders gives them some degree of deniability they wouldn't get broadcasting who and where they are.

We all must keep in mind these could have been two ships that played no part in the act(s) that damaged the pipeline. Maybe smugglers or human traffickers?


(*)disclosure - But what do I know Im an unqualified kiwi guy living in barcelona, who has had over 100 jobs (not sure I would guess ~300 jobs I've had though only fired like 5 times), but never worked in 'intelligence' in fact usually the opposite. Actually now I think about it, I dont think I've ever had a government job in the slightest, counting local government also (like working in library) currently working on a videogame 80+ hours a week, though today had to babysit my child, so day off, first in months .. so nice , big UPs to parents all over, I must ring my parents and thank them
I hope we've all done that at one time or another.
 
Last edited:

deirdre

Senior Member.
I thought 'dark' meant they turned off their GPS/or whatever indicator of their position they have
from the article Duke linked:
Article:
Kurekin cautions that AIS tracking systems onboard ships can, at times, fail. The signal from AIS could stop communicating with satellites or receivers on land, Kurekin says, adding that the signal can be impacted by the weather too. “If there is a vessel that you can see in SAR image but it's not reported by the AIS system, it does not necessarily mean that there's something wrong with this vessel,” Kurekin says. Signals from AIS transponders can also be manipulated—warships have had their AIS data spoofed, and ships around Russia and the Black Sea have vanished from trackers in recent years.
 

Duke

Active Member
from the article Duke linked:
Article:
Kurekin cautions that AIS tracking systems onboard ships can, at times, fail. The signal from AIS could stop communicating with satellites or receivers on land, Kurekin says, adding that the signal can be impacted by the weather too. “If there is a vessel that you can see in SAR image but it's not reported by the AIS system, it does not necessarily mean that there's something wrong with this vessel,” Kurekin says. Signals from AIS transponders can also be manipulated—warships have had their AIS data spoofed, and ships around Russia and the Black Sea have vanished from trackers in recent years.
To clarify, "spoofing" means ships broadcasting false transponder signals that misidentifies them. While the article mentions warships, it's also not uncommon for smugglers and/or pariah nations like North Korea under sanctions to spoof ship identities (see below). In the case of the two ships in the Baltic reported by SpaceKnow, they were broadcasting no transponder signals, false or otherwise.

Article

Following a UN report on North Korean vessels spoofing signals to hide their identity and conduct shipments in violation of sanctions, a new report published Wednesday sheds light on the methods used to trick the international tracking system.

The report, published by the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI) as part of its Project Sandstone series, delves into the case of the North Korean vessel Tae Yang and its attempts to spoof its identity as the Mongolian-flagged chemical tanker called the Krysper Singa.
Content from External Source

https://www.nknews.org/2019/06/nort...cking-system-flaws-to-evade-sanctions-report/
 
Top