I was a crewmember aboard a Sea King crash at sea on October 19, 1985 (100 or so miles off the coast of Somalia).
It wasn't a pretty sight either...although we did all survive (although they aircraft sank). Hard water impact (albeit upright), shattered tail rotor, and immediately discernable water ingress.
If the aircraft had not been an H-3 (but rather a Hooky 2 (aka SH-2), 60B (Foxtrots were not in service yet), or a 46, we all would have surely gone down to the ocean floor with our aircraft. My helmut bag (little green bag zippered bag issued to all aircrews) with wallet containing CA drivers license, Pee Wee Herman fan club card and other less essential items and my first issue of US Navy-issued search and rescue swimmer equipment is all buried with Hurricane Hunter 614 at the bottom of the Indian Ocean.
I can't speak for VTOL, as US aircraft carriers (CVs and CVNs) do not normally carry them. Having been helo aircrew for hundreds of shipboard landings (mostly CV, but quite a few small boy decks as well), I can say you don't just float over the deck and put her down.
On a carrier, you're directed to land on one of 5-6 circles called "spots" Spots 1-2 are generally at near the bow, 3-4 (where most HS [the type of squadron deployed on carriers] landings occur are port side aft of the angled deck, and 5-6 are near the stern.
If you miss your spot, the air boss will personally check in to whether your wings should be pulled. ; )
No question about it, it's easier to land a helo on a CV/CVN than a fixed winger. However, I took the comment about smaller ships to imply frigates, destroyers, crusiers, and the like. It is definitely not easy to land on one of those when the deck is pitching all over the place. The RAST systems in use by much of the HSL community helps, but send a non RAST-equipped helo to a small boy in high seas...and the pucker factor is high.
--Mike
The helos are always the first to take off and last to land.
> The shots were fired FIRST at a NON-SPEEDING car,
> as the testimony above makes clear.
And everybody knows that Italians are beyond the capability of lying...especially when it might serve well to cover up for their own mistakes.
> Since everyone knows that US troops follow up
> a warning shot by spraying cars with hundreds
> of rounds in a panic,
Only blowhard crack pots "know" such a thing. The report indicates only 58 rounds from a 200-round drum were gone, I would say we have yet another instance of an idiot accuser.
> In any event, the whole incident demonstrates
> the usual incompetence and poor training of the
> US military.
No, it just shows tha conspiracy theory dip shits like yourself are alive and well.
> Which might be simply due to the incompetence
> of the morons at the roadblock.
How about you hang out in front of USA or USMC base and call them morons as they enter or exit the base.
> That might be true if it weren't happening on > a "secure" road. But it did.
What do you think makes such roads secure? An active military presence enforcing secutity measures.
>...who did the troops think was in the car?
They would have had no way of knowing. Their facts (which they didn't have much time to react on) were that a car was speeding towards them and ignoring signals to stop. Hundreds of US military personell have been killed in very similar scenarios.
> The vehicle had permission from the US to be > on that road.
Not according to the U.S. military
> And the final damning piece of evidence is the > US refusal to allow the Italian investigators > to inspect the vehicle. That smells of coverup > all around.
Since the car (now in Rome) has been in the possession of the Italians for several days now, the only thing which smells is your seeming inability to keep up with current events.
Sgrena herself says the agent was facing her as he shielded her. Was he hit from behind relavtive to him? Yes. Was he hit from behind relative to the car? No,
> as was Sgrena
Source?
> The so-called "roadblock" was ten meters off > to the side of the road which is not how you > do a roadblock.
Perhaps the US military could use your excellent battle-tested skills to teach them how to do their jobs.
> There were NO signals - that is the usual > Pentagon cover-up.
I see. So you were there?
>...a vehicle which was known to be on that road > with the permission of the US military
Source?
> Although one has to wonder whether "Iraqis" > would have been on that secure road
You can wonder all you want. The fact is that road is the most dangerous one in Iraq...with thousands of insurgent attacks made on it (day and night).
> But they did alert the U.S forces about > their intentions
They did? Because one person said he did? Has there been any evidence whatsoever showing that such communications (or even attempts at communications) were made??? Didn't thin so.
>...only a fuckup in the U.S. communications > prevented that information from reaching the checkpoint.
The only fuckups are the people who believe such horse shit.
So what's to stop them from finishing her and anybody else in the car off after the car stopped?
After all, it was dark, there was nobody else around, and the car occupents were no match for the well-armed forces who stopped them.
The photos clearly show right passenger-side windows blown out (one of those rounds was the one killing the agent)
What do you suppose happened to those rounds after hitting the passenger window and not hitting a person or car interior? Is it reasonable to assume they passed right on through the rear window?
Or, On your planet do the laws of physics dictate that a 7.62x51mm round travelling at approximately 2800ft/sec will immediately stop upon hitting a few millimeters of glass?
> I really don't understand that mentality at all.
Probably because your sitting safe and sound and not at constant risk of getting shot or killed by explosives.
> It is the responsibility of the military occupiers with the weapons
> to make sure they don't shoot the wrong people.
Says who? And how are they supposed to know who the "wrong people" are when those people do not communicate their intentions and ignore all signals to stop?
> I really don't understand that mentality at all.
Probably because your sitting safe and sound and not at constant risk of getting shot or killed by explosives.
> It is the responsibility of the military occupiers
> with the weapons to make sure they don't shoot the
> wrong people.
Says who?
And how are they supposed to know who the "wrong people" are when those people do not communicate their intentions and ignore all signals to stop?
That being case, you would think the Italians involved in the operation would have alerted the U.S. forces about their intentions in advance. It appears they failed to do so.
People who do not follow instructions or use common sense in a war zone have nobody but themselves to blame when they are fired upon.
Well far be it from me to argue with an encyclopedia web site, but it is in error. Either that, or the Navy needs to be made aware that they are in error.
--Mike
That wasn't the case when I was in the Navy. Outside of three miles is international waters...which is why the Soviet spy ships hung about 3.5 miles off the coast of San Diego during much of the latter Cold War years.
The Soviets claimed 12 miles (which we did not "officially" breach).
--Mike
Which doesn't mean on cannot get quick and competent service as well as cheap prices. The two are not mutually exclusive.
Case in point: godaddy.com
--Mike
That hasn't been my experience with Verizon Wireless in the last five years (some of which were obviously with GTE Wireless) of daily heavy useof their service in the SF Bay area. I live in SF, but do client calls all around Marin, San Mateo, and Alameda counties as well as all over SF.
The only time I ever get dropped calls with them in the SF area is when I hit known dead spots (like much of Pac Heights as well as Diamond Heights).
Sounds to me like you have a cr*ppy phone. It's best to stay away from the digital-only junk. Get yourself a dual mode tri-band phone, and you should have bette luck.
--Mike
Chalk it up to shrewd an effective tactics on the part of Hotwired and object stupidity on the part of Conde Nast in not mandating the domain brand stay with the magazine. The Hotwired folks got a windfall in sudden ownership of a domain they did little to nothing to build value to...while the people who actually did make the brand got stuck with q uickly slapped together wiredmag.com identity.
Does DSPAM have the depth of user contributions (such as lots of great public rule sets) like SA does? SA does a good job...but it's add-ons like antidrug, weeds, backhair, etc. which make SA a great tool.
From a mail server list I belong to:
They are the worlds biggest scum bags. They are SPAMMERS, this is FACT. A quick google is enough to convince anyone. They have been doing this for years. They have been kicked off of every network and network provider there is. Am I too assume they have some how changed their ways? Can I also safely assume that Faulkner is not running the show anymore? I openly welcome a suit from them as I have complained about them for years, and have blocked every network they host on.
What CI Host is doing is trying to find a way to make money, and fast. Why? A few years back just before new years they suddenly moved their services to a new provider and created the worlds largest DNS screw up in Internet history. Some of their customers sites were not reachable for 2 weeks or more. They lost 75% of their customer base during that little event because they flat out lied about what really caused the screw up. After that happened they were hit with a huge class action
(http://www.evolvedsites.com/cipetition.html). Its almost time for them to pay up on their settlement, so its either go bust or sue AOL or anyone else to find money.
I spoke to Chris Faulkner a few years back, he is a dirt bag. I'm thinking of holding contest on eBay to see who will bid the highest to have that scum bag shave a "SPAMMER" on the back of his head. Those who have seen the new PingZine Web Hosting Mag will know what I am talking about.
I hope AOL counter sues this dirt bag into oblivion. Back in the early days, Faulkner used to personally email the spam himself. I cannot express enough what a piece of trash this guy is. He is a liar when he says he does not spam. I have a collection of CIHOST spam dating back to 97'. I am no fan of AOL, but I have to agree with their block. We currently have the same blocks in place.
For once AOL is doing something I totally agree with.
Slashdot Mirror
Probably not a pretty site.
I was a crewmember aboard a Sea King crash at sea on October 19, 1985 (100 or so miles off the coast of Somalia).
It wasn't a pretty sight either...although we did all survive (although they aircraft sank). Hard water impact (albeit upright), shattered tail rotor, and immediately discernable water ingress.
If the aircraft had not been an H-3 (but rather a Hooky 2 (aka SH-2), 60B (Foxtrots were not in service yet), or a 46, we all would have surely gone down to the ocean floor with our aircraft. My helmut bag (little green bag zippered bag issued to all aircrews) with wallet containing CA drivers license, Pee Wee Herman fan club card and other less essential items and my first issue of US Navy-issued search and rescue swimmer equipment is all buried with Hurricane Hunter 614 at the bottom of the Indian Ocean.
--Mike
The Sea King (aka "Sea Pig") is probably the safest maritime helo ever built.
--Mike
I can't speak for VTOL, as US aircraft carriers (CVs and CVNs) do not normally carry them. Having been helo aircrew for hundreds of shipboard landings (mostly CV, but quite a few small boy decks as well), I can say you don't just float over the deck and put her down.
On a carrier, you're directed to land on one of 5-6 circles called "spots" Spots 1-2 are generally at near the bow, 3-4 (where most HS [the type of squadron deployed on carriers] landings occur are port side aft of the angled deck, and 5-6 are near the stern.
If you miss your spot, the air boss will personally check in to whether your wings should be pulled. ; )
No question about it, it's easier to land a helo on a CV/CVN than a fixed winger. However, I took the comment about smaller ships to imply frigates, destroyers, crusiers, and the like. It is definitely not easy to land on one of those when the deck is pitching all over the place. The RAST systems in use by much of the HSL community helps, but send a non RAST-equipped helo to a small boy in high seas...and the pucker factor is high.
--Mike
The helos are always the first to take off and last to land.
> The shots were fired FIRST at a NON-SPEEDING car, > as the testimony above makes clear. And everybody knows that Italians are beyond the capability of lying...especially when it might serve well to cover up for their own mistakes. > Since everyone knows that US troops follow up > a warning shot by spraying cars with hundreds > of rounds in a panic, Only blowhard crack pots "know" such a thing. The report indicates only 58 rounds from a 200-round drum were gone, I would say we have yet another instance of an idiot accuser. > In any event, the whole incident demonstrates > the usual incompetence and poor training of the > US military. No, it just shows tha conspiracy theory dip shits like yourself are alive and well. > Which might be simply due to the incompetence > of the morons at the roadblock. How about you hang out in front of USA or USMC base and call them morons as they enter or exit the base.
> That might be true if it weren't happening on
...who did the troops think was in the car?
> a "secure" road. But it did.
What do you think makes such roads secure? An active military presence enforcing secutity measures.
>
They would have had no way of knowing. Their facts (which they didn't have much time to react on) were that a car was speeding towards them and ignoring signals to stop. Hundreds of US military personell have been killed in very similar scenarios.
> The vehicle had permission from the US to be
> on that road.
Not according to the U.S. military
> And the final damning piece of evidence is the
> US refusal to allow the Italian investigators
> to inspect the vehicle. That smells of coverup
> all around.
Since the car (now in Rome) has been in the possession of the Italians for several days now, the only thing which smells is your seeming inability to keep up with current events.
It's called a newspaper; look into it.
I have, Coward.
Now cite any evidence to support any such communications to US military personell were made.
> The Italian agent was hit from behind,
...a vehicle which was known to be on that road
Sgrena herself says the agent was facing her as he shielded her. Was he hit from behind relavtive to him? Yes. Was he hit from behind relative to the car? No,
> as was Sgrena
Source?
> The so-called "roadblock" was ten meters off
> to the side of the road which is not how you
> do a roadblock.
Perhaps the US military could use your excellent battle-tested skills to teach them how to do their jobs.
> There were NO signals - that is the usual
> Pentagon cover-up.
I see. So you were there?
>
> with the permission of the US military
Source?
> Although one has to wonder whether "Iraqis"
> would have been on that secure road
You can wonder all you want. The fact is that road is the most dangerous one in Iraq...with thousands of insurgent attacks made on it (day and night).
> But they did alert the U.S forces about
...only a fuckup in the U.S. communications
> their intentions
They did? Because one person said he did? Has there been any evidence whatsoever showing that such communications (or even attempts at communications) were made??? Didn't thin so.
>
> prevented that information from reaching the checkpoint.
The only fuckups are the people who believe such horse shit.
So what's to stop them from finishing her and anybody else in the car off after the car stopped? After all, it was dark, there was nobody else around, and the car occupents were no match for the well-armed forces who stopped them.
The photos clearly show right passenger-side windows blown out (one of those rounds was the one killing the agent)
What do you suppose happened to those rounds after hitting the passenger window and not hitting a person or car interior? Is it reasonable to assume they passed right on through the rear window?
Or, On your planet do the laws of physics dictate that a 7.62x51mm round travelling at approximately 2800ft/sec will immediately stop upon hitting a few millimeters of glass?
> I really don't understand that mentality at all.
Probably because your sitting safe and sound and not at constant risk of getting shot or killed by explosives.
> It is the responsibility of the military occupiers with the weapons
> to make sure they don't shoot the wrong people.
Says who? And how are they supposed to know who the "wrong people" are when those people do not communicate their intentions and ignore all signals to stop?
> I really don't understand that mentality at all. Probably because your sitting safe and sound and not at constant risk of getting shot or killed by explosives. > It is the responsibility of the military occupiers > with the weapons to make sure they don't shoot the > wrong people. Says who? And how are they supposed to know who the "wrong people" are when those people do not communicate their intentions and ignore all signals to stop?
That being case, you would think the Italians involved in the operation would have alerted the U.S. forces about their intentions in advance. It appears they failed to do so. People who do not follow instructions or use common sense in a war zone have nobody but themselves to blame when they are fired upon.
> Many Italians believe that her car was
> deliberately fired upon because of her politics.
If that were the case, why is she still alive?
> Note that the US has refused to the Italians
> see the car.
Really? Since the Italians have had the car in their possession (now in Rome), how is it the U.S. is able to refuse the Italians to see it?
Try reading a newspaper once in a while.
>...my quickie conclusion: because of the obvious
> discrepencies, the refusal to show the car,
See above
> the unexplained motivation to keep this material
> secret,
So in addition to not being able to read a newspaper, you are also completely lacking of common sense?
Military tactics are very often classified (why tell the enemy how you operate).
Far be it from anyone to question the conclusions of the world-famous citizenlab.org
Not as far as the the US Navy and Coast Guard are concerned. They enforce a 3-mile border. --Mike
Well far be it from me to argue with an encyclopedia web site, but it is in error. Either that, or the Navy needs to be made aware that they are in error. --Mike
That wasn't the case when I was in the Navy. Outside of three miles is international waters...which is why the Soviet spy ships hung about 3.5 miles off the coast of San Diego during much of the latter Cold War years. The Soviets claimed 12 miles (which we did not "officially" breach). --Mike
Before asking them that question, ask your telco what an unlisted number is.
The only place they're getting their money from is the hoards of admins with a clue moving to them.
Super Bowl ads make sense when you hundreds of thousands of new user revenue with hopes to get hundreds of thousands more.
--Mike
Which doesn't mean on cannot get quick and competent service as well as cheap prices. The two are not mutually exclusive. Case in point: godaddy.com --Mike
That hasn't been my experience with Verizon Wireless in the last five years (some of which were obviously with GTE Wireless) of daily heavy useof their service in the SF Bay area. I live in SF, but do client calls all around Marin, San Mateo, and Alameda counties as well as all over SF. The only time I ever get dropped calls with them in the SF area is when I hit known dead spots (like much of Pac Heights as well as Diamond Heights). Sounds to me like you have a cr*ppy phone. It's best to stay away from the digital-only junk. Get yourself a dual mode tri-band phone, and you should have bette luck. --Mike
Chalk it up to shrewd an effective tactics on the part of Hotwired and object stupidity on the part of Conde Nast in not mandating the domain brand stay with the magazine. The Hotwired folks got a windfall in sudden ownership of a domain they did little to nothing to build value to...while the people who actually did make the brand got stuck with q uickly slapped together wiredmag.com identity.
Does DSPAM have the depth of user contributions (such as lots of great public rule sets) like SA does? SA does a good job...but it's add-ons like antidrug, weeds, backhair, etc. which make SA a great tool.
Does DSPAM have the following SA does?
--Mike
From a mail server list I belong to: They are the worlds biggest scum bags. They are SPAMMERS, this is FACT. A quick google is enough to convince anyone. They have been doing this for years. They have been kicked off of every network and network provider there is. Am I too assume they have some how changed their ways? Can I also safely assume that Faulkner is not running the show anymore? I openly welcome a suit from them as I have complained about them for years, and have blocked every network they host on. What CI Host is doing is trying to find a way to make money, and fast. Why? A few years back just before new years they suddenly moved their services to a new provider and created the worlds largest DNS screw up in Internet history. Some of their customers sites were not reachable for 2 weeks or more. They lost 75% of their customer base during that little event because they flat out lied about what really caused the screw up. After that happened they were hit with a huge class action (http://www.evolvedsites.com/cipetition.html). Its almost time for them to pay up on their settlement, so its either go bust or sue AOL or anyone else to find money. I spoke to Chris Faulkner a few years back, he is a dirt bag. I'm thinking of holding contest on eBay to see who will bid the highest to have that scum bag shave a "SPAMMER" on the back of his head. Those who have seen the new PingZine Web Hosting Mag will know what I am talking about. I hope AOL counter sues this dirt bag into oblivion. Back in the early days, Faulkner used to personally email the spam himself. I cannot express enough what a piece of trash this guy is. He is a liar when he says he does not spam. I have a collection of CIHOST spam dating back to 97'. I am no fan of AOL, but I have to agree with their block. We currently have the same blocks in place. For once AOL is doing something I totally agree with.