Russian satellites prove conspiracy to fabricate Gaddafi air attacks on civilians

[Caustic Logic]

The claim is made around that Russian analysis of satellite images proves there were no government air strikes on protesters in the Libyan uprising's early days. It's not something I buy, partly from seeing people dismiss it here.

I was wondering if I could host this spot for a few sharp posters to assess and debunk this claim, possibly with links that explain why that can't be true? Then there's a place to link to when someone brings it up.

Sorry, no links handy, too late to dig some up. I understand Webster Tarpley (not a good sign) is one of the people making this allegation, in a video from Prison Planet or other Alex Jones show, for one. (saw it earlier today).

[Zep]

Originally Posted by Caustic Logic

The claim is made around that Russian analysis of satellite images proves there were no government air strikes on protesters in the Libyan uprising's early days. It's not something I buy, partly from seeing people dismiss it here.

I was wondering if I could host this spot for a few sharp posters to assess and debunk this claim, possibly with links that explain why that can't be true? Then there's a place to link to when someone brings it up.

Sorry, no links handy, too late to dig some up. I understand Webster Tarpley (not a good sign) is one of the people making this allegation, in a video from Prison Planet or other Alex Jones show, for one. (saw it earlier today).

There's a clue for you why it is probably *****.

[Captain_Swoop]

Well the BBC, ITN and Sky teams on the ground had footage of Gadaffi aircraft dropping bombs.

[little grey rabbit]

It depends on what you mean by "civilian protesters"

The original claim as I understand it, that people gather in the cities to protest and were strafed and bombed by Gaddafi planes in mid to late feb. This, according to Russian military sources is false
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0_Upkqagf3o

However, if you mean by "civilian protesters" insurgents on the desert road between Ras Lanuf and Ajadibiyah, then it is true - although apparantly not very accurate - perhaps they didn't want to damage the road. They also bombed some ammunitions dumps.

So the original claim was false. But using aircraft in situations that everyone except NATO, Al Jazeera and the 10 members of the UN Security Council recognise as combat situations is true.

[Caustic Logic]

Thanks, that takes it back past Trapley and Jones, but even the Russians were wrong, somone here said last time it was brought up. I was hoping for an explanation from someone who knew what that was about.

[geni]

Originally Posted by Caustic Logic

The claim is made around that Russian analysis of satellite images proves there were no government air strikes on protesters in the Libyan uprising's early days. It's not something I buy, partly from seeing people dismiss it here.

I was wondering if I could host this spot for a few sharp posters to assess and debunk this claim, possibly with links that explain why that can't be true? Then there's a place to link to when someone brings it up.

You can't see active bombing missions from a satillite. You can see craters if they are large enough and thats about it. Worse still you can't really sport lightly armed forces at all.

So at best you could say that there was no bombing using heavy bombs that hit residential areas but you couldn't rule out lighter bombs or strafing.

[Caustic Logic]

Originally Posted by geni

You can't see active bombing missions from a satillite. You can see craters if they are large enough and thats about it. Worse still you can't really sport lightly armed forces at all.

So at best you could say that there was no bombing using heavy bombs that hit residential areas but you couldn't rule out lighter bombs or strafing.

Thanks, that'll do to start anyway. Specifics and links would help next. (wink). I'm just too busy these days to research it myself in any depth.

[little grey rabbit]

Originally Posted by Caustic Logic

Thanks, that takes it back past Trapley and Jones, but even the Russians were wrong, somone here said last time it was brought up. I was hoping for an explanation from someone who knew what that was about.

1. I know what it is about and I gave you an explanation.
2. You said the claim was from prisonplanet, it is not. It is from the official russian TV channel. If prisonplanet reproduces a column from Paul Krugman of the NYTimes, the source remains Paul Krugman and the NYTimes, not Alex Jones.
3. The news item did not say that they were monitoring using satellite photographs, just that they were monitoring using space technology.
4. In the end it comes down to a basis of trust. Do the Russian military have an incentive to lie or more of an incentive than the Western news agencies. Have the western agencies produced anything to back up their claims - given that insurgents clearly have lots and lots of mobile phones capable of taking clips.

If you want to see a crowd of "civilian protesters" using mobile phones to capture atrocities, look no further than here
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bVukQDXuCSE

Alas, the atrocities they are capturing are their own.

[Caustic Logic]

Originally Posted by little grey rabbit

1. I know what it is about and I gave you an explanation.
2. You said the claim was from prisonplanet, it is not. It is from the official russian TV channel. If prisonplanet reproduces a column from Paul Krugman of the NYTimes, the source remains Paul Krugman and the NYTimes, not Alex Jones.
3. The news item did not say that they were monitoring using satellite photographs, just that they were monitoring using space technology.
4. In the end it comes down to a basis of trust. Do the Russian military have an incentive to lie or more of an incentive than the Western news agencies. Have the western agencies produced anything to back up their claims - given that insurgents clearly have lots and lots of mobile phones capable of taking clips.

If you want to see a crowd of "civilian protesters" using mobile phones to capture atrocities, look no further than here
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bVukQDXuCSE

Alas, the atrocities they are capturing are their own.

1+2. I meant that's one place it was mentioned. And that in itself is a bad sign. Not sure death by any means - Tarpley and Jones have passed on valid info before. I knew it was from Russian government sources to begin with.

3. Ah. That could make a big difference. To repeat it:
"The news item did not say that they were monitoring using satellite photographs, just that they were monitoring using space technology."

4. I agree these allegations of bombing protesters are questionable,like most of the other reports we get from there. Do the Russians have an incentive to lie? I would presume so, if they were in fact lying. If they say their satellite info disproves something it doesn't, then they're lying. I'm undecided and apparently uninformed just what it is they're talking about. Will need better yet sources that details on what tech was used, and then see if THAT gets debunked.

A few links:
"images from space satellites": http://news-now.org/2011/03/russian-...id-not-happen/

Actually they all seem to be the same article over and over. Doesn't Russia Today or anyone else have a fuller explanation?

[little grey rabbit]

I am still puzzled by your focus on Alex Jones - the source is quite plainly Russian military intelligence - who for whatever reason, decided that alerting the world that outlandish claims of Gaddafi straffing protest rallies in cities was untrue. Of course, we all know there is no evidence whatsoever to support this claim either.

I don't know the capabilities of Russian spy satellites. Possibly it also included humint that they wish to conceal - such as a mole in MI6 where the plan to spread this story might have been discussed and approved.

[Caustic Logic]

Originally Posted by little grey rabbit

I am still puzzled by your focus on Alex Jones - the source is quite plainly Russian military intelligence - who for whatever reason, decided that alerting the world that outlandish claims of Gaddafi straffing protest rallies in cities was untrue. Of course, we all know there is no evidence whatsoever to support this claim either.

I don't know the capabilities of Russian spy satellites. Possibly it also included humint that they wish to conceal - such as a mole in MI6 where the plan to spread this story might have been discussed and approved.

I don't fully trust governments or militaries. They sometimes say weird things for weird political reasons I don't get. The fact that this Russian claim was picked up by people who are known to pick up weird and wrong things is not a good sign.

I didn't mean to labor that point or hang too much on it. The claim needs to be evaluated on its own merits. I don't see an obvious reason for the Russian joint chiefs to lie about this, and I imagine satellites could possibly pick up some sign or other of aircraft attacks of the scale in question. So far I heard bad things about it, but maybe that was from a misunderstanding. Thanks for the bump. Nothing new myself, got sidetracked with other things...

I don't deny the evidence for protester-bombing or even strafing is badly lacking. No crater photos I know of, no cell phone videos of these attacks, nothing except words from people far from objectivity, and a number of fuzzy amalgamations floating out there in brains like Hillary's. That's clearly relevant in this context, but my main focus is on this one argument against such wild stories. It's more a technical question than a sweeping overview of the evidence for or against gov't air attacks.

ETA: Oh, and that last point is an interesting one. Thanks.

[little grey rabbit]

The other possibilities is if they supplied any of the Libyan air defences equipment they may have left bugs which they can retrieve information from.

I have been told that France does that with its high end equipment.

[McHrozni]

Originally Posted by Caustic Logic

The claim is made around that Russian analysis of satellite images proves there were no government air strikes on protesters in the Libyan uprising's early days. It's not something I buy, partly from seeing people dismiss it here.

I was wondering if I could host this spot for a few sharp posters to assess and debunk this claim, possibly with links that explain why that can't be true? Then there's a place to link to when someone brings it up.

Sorry, no links handy, too late to dig some up. I understand Webster Tarpley (not a good sign) is one of the people making this allegation, in a video from Prison Planet or other Alex Jones show, for one. (saw it earlier today).

Proving the negative is pretty much impossible to begin with, a claim that satelite surveillance of any way was used to prove air strikes didn't happen is an uphill struggle by itself.

That said, how could satelite surveillance be used to disprove airstrikes in the first place? Is there any known mechanism for this? If yes, what is it?

McHrozni

[McHrozni]

Originally Posted by Caustic Logic

3. Ah. That could make a big difference. To repeat it:
"The news item did not say that they were monitoring using satellite photographs, just that they were monitoring using space technology."

If this is true, then all AWACS and ground based radars and such are as obsolete as catapults. Do you really think it is remotely likely that US is so far behind the curve?

McHrozni

[Caustic Logic]

Originally Posted by McHrozni

Proving the negative is pretty much impossible to begin with, a claim that satelite surveillance of any way was used to prove air strikes didn't happen is an uphill struggle by itself.

That said, how could satelite surveillance be used to disprove airstrikes in the first place? Is there any known mechanism for this? If yes, what is it?

McHrozni

I don't know. Not without some research I don't have time for.

If they could have steady video from geosynch orbit, that could see in any detail, they could see no jets flying over a certain area in that whole time. Do that for all major cities in question, and you've got proof! (as if that makes any sense)

Otherwise, I can't think of anything that I know makes sense, but that's not saying much. I'm way behind on what satellites can pick up. Collated ground radar info beamed up somehow, electrostatic discharge paths that can be seen for days, disruptions of the ether, remote viewing?

[McHrozni]

Originally Posted by Caustic Logic

I don't know. Not without some research I don't have time for.

If they could have steady video from geosynch orbit, that could see in any detail, they could see no jets flying over a certain area in that whole time. Do that for all major cities in question, and you've got proof! (as if that makes any sense)

This would require the Russians to have an array of quite specialized, technologically advanced satelites, whose only concievable purpose would be to either prove or disprove plane overflights. The satelites would need to be able to cover dozens or hundreds of square miles at the same time, with video no less, with spatial and temporal resolution adequate to spot a small jet fighter in flight, which also amounts to enormous quantities of data (probably to the order of many terabytes per second if not more - the more you encode it the better resolution you'll need) to be streamed back home. Is there any evidence they have such an array?

Quote:

Otherwise, I can't think of anything that I know makes sense, but that's not saying much. I'm way behind on what satellites can pick up. Collated ground radar info beamed up somehow, electrostatic discharge paths that can be seen for days, disruptions of the ether, remote viewing?

To me, remote viewing seems the most plausible of the bunch
Trouble is, it doesn't have anything to do with satelites.

McHrozni