The Miss Education of Republicans..
Registered User
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 352
Originally Posted by syncopation
Basically there are a few catagories, but it is best to combine several for a clear understanding of what's underground.
Resistivity
electromagnet
ground penetrating radar
magnetic properties.
Below is a magnetic anamoly map of South Dakota, just because size of scope has become an issue. Not so hard to scan an entire state for large magnetic anomolies. Buildings and bunkers fall into this catagory. When you compare aerial photos of above ground items you can compare and get a relative idea of where anomolies are occuring below ground. Not so bad. Then you want to scan relative areas to get put things into a smaller scale.
My favorite choice in combination with this is ground penetrating radar. It is a noninvasive electromagnetic geophysical technique for subsurface exploration, characterization and monitoring. It is widely used in locating lost utilities, environmental site characterization and monitoring, agriculture, archaeological and forensic investigation (did I say archeological, oh yeah baby), unexploded ordnance and land mine detection (sure can, not a problem), groundwater, pavement and infrastructure characterization, mining, ice sounding, permafrost, void, cave and tunnel detection, sinkholes, subsidence, karst, and a host of other applications.
It may be deployed from the surface by hand or vehicle, in boreholes, between boreholes, from aircraft and from satellites. It has the highest resolution of any geophysical method for imaging the subsurface, with centimeter scale resolution sometimes possible (this depends on your wavelength and intensity).
If there is any of this that is not understood, let me know, I will explain further. Just because you and some other people don't believe it's true, doesn't make it so. Opinion means very little on this topic.
If your next question is "why haven't we found all the lost cities etc... etc.." it's becasue this takes time and money, not something that everyone has.
Your missunderstanding of complex technology does not negate my argument, and it doesn't support your own.
Maybe the government is telling you it can't be done because they don't want to incriminate their behavior. Imagine having to tell the world that you didn't find WMD's and that your intelligence was wrong. Oh wait, that did happen.
Resistivity
electromagnet
ground penetrating radar
magnetic properties.
Below is a magnetic anamoly map of South Dakota, just because size of scope has become an issue. Not so hard to scan an entire state for large magnetic anomolies. Buildings and bunkers fall into this catagory. When you compare aerial photos of above ground items you can compare and get a relative idea of where anomolies are occuring below ground. Not so bad. Then you want to scan relative areas to get put things into a smaller scale.
My favorite choice in combination with this is ground penetrating radar. It is a noninvasive electromagnetic geophysical technique for subsurface exploration, characterization and monitoring. It is widely used in locating lost utilities, environmental site characterization and monitoring, agriculture, archaeological and forensic investigation (did I say archeological, oh yeah baby), unexploded ordnance and land mine detection (sure can, not a problem), groundwater, pavement and infrastructure characterization, mining, ice sounding, permafrost, void, cave and tunnel detection, sinkholes, subsidence, karst, and a host of other applications.
It may be deployed from the surface by hand or vehicle, in boreholes, between boreholes, from aircraft and from satellites. It has the highest resolution of any geophysical method for imaging the subsurface, with centimeter scale resolution sometimes possible (this depends on your wavelength and intensity).
If there is any of this that is not understood, let me know, I will explain further. Just because you and some other people don't believe it's true, doesn't make it so. Opinion means very little on this topic.
If your next question is "why haven't we found all the lost cities etc... etc.." it's becasue this takes time and money, not something that everyone has.
Your missunderstanding of complex technology does not negate my argument, and it doesn't support your own.
Maybe the government is telling you it can't be done because they don't want to incriminate their behavior. Imagine having to tell the world that you didn't find WMD's and that your intelligence was wrong. Oh wait, that did happen.
Time and money, yes those are the factors to consider....when something is ridiculously expensive, it is not possible. We could theoretically do a line of men like centurions across Iraq to search for WMD's too, but the cost makes it impossible.
What you've done here is repeated what you claimed in an earlier post with more detail, and then claimed you somehow answered the question. You did not. No one has ever claimed that it's not possible to search below ground. My claim is that it's not possible to search vast areas for the hidden articles in question by using "scans" or technology. Presenting technology that is only useful for scanning limited areas at a time doesn't solve that problem. If magnetic anamoly scans were detailed and could cover large ground, then submarines would not be used. That you understand, right?
As for radar, exact same problem. You can only scan limited areas at any given time, and you still need people to go search out and confirm what the small scans tell you. Nothing there that tells me how you scan an entire country in a feasible manner.
Finally, let's get to my misunderstanding: that's predicated on your repeated false assertion that I somehow claimed underground searches were not possible. Quote me on that, or I'll ignore the charge in later posts.
I don't think cost/time is an issue to our govt. I think they don't feel a need to prove/disprove the idea of WMD's because they alrady got permission to raid the country. Who cares if your reasons for doing are wrong if your already there, so to speak. Besides, you change your reason for doing so. Such as, "Saddam didn't like us, He eats much steak!, He is an oppressor!, Look at his silly mustache!" you get my drift.
I feel, and this is only an educated guess, that we should have had an excellent understanding of geophysical Iraq within six months to a year. This would have given appropiate time to functionally scale the size of California. As for cost, I could not say, that's really not my area. But I think time is more important in the case. The question would be 'how fast do you want it'... then that would give a better idea of cost.
Congrats on your attendance to law school (not being sarcastic). I believe graduate school is an excellent oppurtunity to become a better thinker.
Again, your argument is based on your not understanding a complex technology. That is the flaw. You can't wave your hands and dispell it because you are ignorant.
If you truly desire more accurate cost analysis I suggest you research more about the topic.
SD = 77,121 sq miles for reference
I feel, and this is only an educated guess, that we should have had an excellent understanding of geophysical Iraq within six months to a year. This would have given appropiate time to functionally scale the size of California. As for cost, I could not say, that's really not my area. But I think time is more important in the case. The question would be 'how fast do you want it'... then that would give a better idea of cost.
Congrats on your attendance to law school (not being sarcastic). I believe graduate school is an excellent oppurtunity to become a better thinker.
Again, your argument is based on your not understanding a complex technology. That is the flaw. You can't wave your hands and dispell it because you are ignorant.
If you truly desire more accurate cost analysis I suggest you research more about the topic.
SD = 77,121 sq miles for reference
Originally Posted by subaruguru
That's all great, but it didn't answer the question. Your anamoly map of South Dakota is pretty clearly worthless, as someone still has to go look at the limited areas in arial photos, then do a more detailed examination for magnetic anamoly, then send someone to go see. Nothing in the above post gets around the problem of sheer size, you just mentioned technologies again that are capable of looking below ground. Below ground is not the issue; area to be searched is. So, I want to know, since you're experienced with the technololgy, what is the cost and how much area can be searched definitively within a man hour?
Time and money, yes those are the factors to consider....when something is ridiculously expensive, it is not possible. We could theoretically do a line of men like centurions across Iraq to search for WMD's too, but the cost makes it impossible.
What you've done here is repeated what you claimed in an earlier post with more detail, and then claimed you somehow answered the question. You did not. No one has ever claimed that it's not possible to search below ground. My claim is that it's not possible to search vast areas for the hidden articles in question by using "scans" or technology. Presenting technology that is only useful for scanning limited areas at a time doesn't solve that problem. If magnetic anamoly scans were detailed and could cover large ground, then submarines would not be used. That you understand, right?
As for radar, exact same problem. You can only scan limited areas at any given time, and you still need people to go search out and confirm what the small scans tell you. Nothing there that tells me how you scan an entire country in a feasible manner.
Finally, let's get to my misunderstanding: that's predicated on your repeated false assertion that I somehow claimed underground searches were not possible. Quote me on that, or I'll ignore the charge in later posts.
Time and money, yes those are the factors to consider....when something is ridiculously expensive, it is not possible. We could theoretically do a line of men like centurions across Iraq to search for WMD's too, but the cost makes it impossible.
What you've done here is repeated what you claimed in an earlier post with more detail, and then claimed you somehow answered the question. You did not. No one has ever claimed that it's not possible to search below ground. My claim is that it's not possible to search vast areas for the hidden articles in question by using "scans" or technology. Presenting technology that is only useful for scanning limited areas at a time doesn't solve that problem. If magnetic anamoly scans were detailed and could cover large ground, then submarines would not be used. That you understand, right?
As for radar, exact same problem. You can only scan limited areas at any given time, and you still need people to go search out and confirm what the small scans tell you. Nothing there that tells me how you scan an entire country in a feasible manner.
Finally, let's get to my misunderstanding: that's predicated on your repeated false assertion that I somehow claimed underground searches were not possible. Quote me on that, or I'll ignore the charge in later posts.
As for my SD map, sure its valid. How can it not be? You look at individual anomolies, and then decrease your scan area and increase your raster. You take a big peice of cake, and slice it up into most probable areas. You continue to do so until it becomes feasable to use other means (like sending men to investigate). Size has become your argument, but that is not an issue. Suddenly cost and time are the problem. What next? Is your next argument going to be that the complexity of the technology makes it unusable by an infantrymen?
What do submarines have to do this? Are you asserting that submarines are only used for detecting things underground? Bad argument.
Registered User
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 352
Originally Posted by syncopation
It's pretty clear form this post that you still do not understand the technology, so I will begin my thread on terrorism for you. We are both wasting our time as you continue to berate a point that has no consequence to my argument.
As for my SD map, sure its valid. How can it not be? You look at individual anomolies, and then decrease your scan area and increase your raster. You take a big peice of cake, and slice it up into most probable areas. You continue to do so until it becomes feasable to use other means (like sending men to investigate). Size has become your argument, but that is not an issue. Suddenly cost and time are the problem. What next? Is your next argument going to be that the complexity of the technology makes it unusable by an infantrymen?
What do submarines have to do this? Are you asserting that submarines are only used for detecting things underground? Bad argument.
As for my SD map, sure its valid. How can it not be? You look at individual anomolies, and then decrease your scan area and increase your raster. You take a big peice of cake, and slice it up into most probable areas. You continue to do so until it becomes feasable to use other means (like sending men to investigate). Size has become your argument, but that is not an issue. Suddenly cost and time are the problem. What next? Is your next argument going to be that the complexity of the technology makes it unusable by an infantrymen?
What do submarines have to do this? Are you asserting that submarines are only used for detecting things underground? Bad argument.
If you'd just lay out that info, you'd have answered the question and I'd have nothing more to say. Since you're not doing that, I'm sticking with firsthand information from intelligence officers who say that it is not possible to scan an entire country
Again, your question about man hours cannot be applied because ther are a multitude of ways of answering the same question of 'where is the stuff'. Are we using a satellite, a plane, a man with divining rod, or a combination? What is my budget for the technology? How deep am I probing? What size object am I looking for? How much time am I alloted to for setup? etc.. etc.. etc...
Questions like yours need constraints. I already stated a sufficient time would be 6 months to a year (and that is a combination of techniques employing a satellite and plane). Plus this is an overestimate of time. If size is the issue, then I already answered that it is not a problem.
If I asked how fast you could dig a hole, you could do it faster with a backhoe than your own two hands. I'm asking for your question to be less ambiguous.
Submarines are not a good example because they are a moving object. WMD's should have stopped moving by now, right? I heard a politicain use that that submarine analogy at a press conference and I nearly died laughing! I think the worst part is that none of the press understood the difference between a moving and stationary object!
Questions like yours need constraints. I already stated a sufficient time would be 6 months to a year (and that is a combination of techniques employing a satellite and plane). Plus this is an overestimate of time. If size is the issue, then I already answered that it is not a problem.
If I asked how fast you could dig a hole, you could do it faster with a backhoe than your own two hands. I'm asking for your question to be less ambiguous.
Submarines are not a good example because they are a moving object. WMD's should have stopped moving by now, right? I heard a politicain use that that submarine analogy at a press conference and I nearly died laughing! I think the worst part is that none of the press understood the difference between a moving and stationary object!
Registered User
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 352
Originally Posted by syncopation
Again, your question about man hours cannot be applied because ther are a multitude of ways of answering the same question of 'where is the stuff'. Are we using a satellite, a plane, a man with divining rod, or a combination? What is my budget for the technology? How deep am I probing? What size object am I looking for? How much time am I alloted to for setup? etc.. etc.. etc...
Questions like yours need constraints. I already stated a sufficient time would be 6 months to a year (and that is a combination of techniques employing a satellite and plane). Plus this is an overestimate of time. If size is the issue, then I already answered that it is not a problem.
If I asked how fast you could dig a hole, you could do it faster with a backhoe than your own two hands. I'm asking for your question to be less ambiguous.
Submarines are not a good example because they are a moving object. WMD's should have stopped moving by now, right? I heard a politicain use that that submarine analogy at a press conference and I nearly died laughing! I think the worst part is that none of the press understood the difference between a moving and stationary object!
Questions like yours need constraints. I already stated a sufficient time would be 6 months to a year (and that is a combination of techniques employing a satellite and plane). Plus this is an overestimate of time. If size is the issue, then I already answered that it is not a problem.
If I asked how fast you could dig a hole, you could do it faster with a backhoe than your own two hands. I'm asking for your question to be less ambiguous.
Submarines are not a good example because they are a moving object. WMD's should have stopped moving by now, right? I heard a politicain use that that submarine analogy at a press conference and I nearly died laughing! I think the worst part is that none of the press understood the difference between a moving and stationary object!
Submarines move, yes, but even if they didn't...you can't scan a whole ocean for them. That's how shipwrecks get lost and then never found again.
I'm not misunderstanding the technology. What I'm doing is asking a question you don't want to answer. Please answer the question, so we can settle the matter of possibility. Your assertion that cost is of no object to the US government is so absurd I won't even respond to it except to say that it is indeed absurd.
Originally Posted by subaruguru
Even if the WMD's are not moving, what you're avoiding here is answering the question of cost of scanning an ENTIRE country. Answer that question. Six months to a year for an entire country to be scanned is asinine, and if you'd post the man hour costs for what you see as the best technology, we could all see that. So pick the best one for a search, then list some man hours and costs.
Submarines move, yes, but even if they didn't...you can't scan a whole ocean for them. That's how shipwrecks get lost and then never found again.
.
Submarines move, yes, but even if they didn't...you can't scan a whole ocean for them. That's how shipwrecks get lost and then never found again.
.
I don't feel 6 months to a year is unacceptable. I do however think that the death of 1000+ US combatants is unacceptable.
How long have we occupied the country? What have we found? Exactly. 6 months to a year doesn't sound so bad now does it?
Issue of cost (instead of its impossibility):
It took two days to do a magnetometer study of SD with approximately 1 sq mile of resolution. Does that help? Iraq is about 170K miles, so you can crunch the numbers. I suggest calling lockheed or SS loral or other sat builder and ask what a days worth time might be. It's expensive, no doubt. But if you already own the satellites and don't pay for them hourly (like a certain powerful nation, hint hint) who cares.
I couldn't say how much satellite time would cost, or the cost of troops etc.... so you are asking me to make guesses on things. I'm not avoiding the question. I feel I've already answered it to the best of my ability. If that's not good enough, fine. Not a problem for me. But I'm not going to make statements outside my area of expertise on this.
***reassertion****
Yes, it's completely possible to search for bunkers/wmd facilities using various wave reflection techniques over the size of Iraq.
If you feel the timeline is impractical, that's ok with me. If you think it costs to much, thats ok too. Just don't try and say you can't do it. Not only can you do it, you can search for items the size of a penny.
Nobody said anything about time or money or how much or how deep or in the water or in the hills, or ....
Originally Posted by subaruguru
Now, on the issue of technology, if you're familiar with this, you know that it is utterly and completely impossible to search an entire country for objects smaller than the size of an enormous building..
You right-wing guys are really good. I continue to find it amazing that you guys can divert attention away from the truth and keep us truth-seeking Americans from seeing the forest for the trees.
THERE ARE NO WMD'S!
There haven't been since Gulf War I. The Duelfer Report proved it. When are you going to stop arguing that there still may be weapons? They don't exist.
THERE ARE NO WMD'S!
There haven't been since Gulf War I. The Duelfer Report proved it. When are you going to stop arguing that there still may be weapons? They don't exist.
Registered User
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 352
Originally Posted by syncopation
Shipwrecks never get found because either people stop looking or they are not using the right equipment. Things do not dissapear. Finding a moving object is hard. It is not practical to search for something like a submarine because even if you found it, it would move by the time you got to scan that area. Plus the size of the ocean is only slightly bigger that iraq !1 Why is always an apples to oranges comparison?
I don't feel 6 months to a year is unacceptable. I do however think that the death of 1000+ US combatants is unacceptable.
How long have we occupied the country? What have we found? Exactly. 6 months to a year doesn't sound so bad now does it?
Issue of cost (instead of its impossibility):
It took two days to do a magnetometer study of SD with approximately 1 sq mile of resolution. Does that help? Iraq is about 170K miles, so you can crunch the numbers. I suggest calling lockheed or SS loral or other sat builder and ask what a days worth time might be. It's expensive, no doubt. But if you already own the satellites and don't pay for them hourly (like a certain powerful nation, hint hint) who cares.
I couldn't say how much satellite time would cost, or the cost of troops etc.... so you are asking me to make guesses on things. I'm not avoiding the question. I feel I've already answered it to the best of my ability. If that's not good enough, fine. Not a problem for me. But I'm not going to make statements outside my area of expertise on this.
***reassertion****
Yes, it's completely possible to search for bunkers/wmd facilities using various wave reflection techniques over the size of Iraq.
If you feel the timeline is impractical, that's ok with me. If you think it costs to much, thats ok too. Just don't try and say you can't do it. Not only can you do it, you can search for items the size of a penny.
Nobody said anything about time or money or how much or how deep or in the water or in the hills, or ....
I don't feel 6 months to a year is unacceptable. I do however think that the death of 1000+ US combatants is unacceptable.
How long have we occupied the country? What have we found? Exactly. 6 months to a year doesn't sound so bad now does it?
Issue of cost (instead of its impossibility):
It took two days to do a magnetometer study of SD with approximately 1 sq mile of resolution. Does that help? Iraq is about 170K miles, so you can crunch the numbers. I suggest calling lockheed or SS loral or other sat builder and ask what a days worth time might be. It's expensive, no doubt. But if you already own the satellites and don't pay for them hourly (like a certain powerful nation, hint hint) who cares.
I couldn't say how much satellite time would cost, or the cost of troops etc.... so you are asking me to make guesses on things. I'm not avoiding the question. I feel I've already answered it to the best of my ability. If that's not good enough, fine. Not a problem for me. But I'm not going to make statements outside my area of expertise on this.
***reassertion****
Yes, it's completely possible to search for bunkers/wmd facilities using various wave reflection techniques over the size of Iraq.
If you feel the timeline is impractical, that's ok with me. If you think it costs to much, thats ok too. Just don't try and say you can't do it. Not only can you do it, you can search for items the size of a penny.
Nobody said anything about time or money or how much or how deep or in the water or in the hills, or ....
With your topographical map example, the problem persists. In the first place, you've go to have somebody review every square mile for a magnetic anamoly that might possibly be a building. Then, you have to go and investigate all those square miles that could potentially have something hidden on them. Topo-maps are not, by any stretch of the imagination, WMD search tools. Iraq is just about 271,583 square miles, so that's a lot of searching left to do.
Now, as for expertise...I already told you what an intelligence officer will say about search capability: Not possible to search a whole country. You're falling back on the resources question without any attempt at saving the point, but that's silly. Of course, if we sent every man woman and child to Iraq, and had the rest of the world give us al water and food, and walked across the desert hand in hand we might find what we were looking for. But I count utter economic infeasibility as impossible, how about you?
Since you cannot come up with a cost figure or even settle on a technology that could be reasonably assumed to scan the land area with any sort of effictiveness, you're still at square one: claiming something that contradicts what our nation's intelligence officers say about intelligence capability, but having absolutely zero substantiation for the claim.
Originally Posted by bassplayrr
Where can I buy the cliff notes to this thread?
-Chris
-Chris
guru- you can't search an entire country for WMD's
me- sure you can
guru-not possible, costs too much, too much time
me- possible, not really, if you think so
Registered User
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 352
Originally Posted by syncopation
cliff notes
guru- you can't search an entire country for WMD's
me- sure you can
guru-not possible, costs too much, too much time
me- possible, not really, if you think so
guru- you can't search an entire country for WMD's
me- sure you can
guru-not possible, costs too much, too much time
me- possible, not really, if you think so
You--Relying on you claiming to personally know the technology makes it possible, yet being unable to cite the specific technology you'd advocate and further unable to begin to discuss costs or timeframes.
Topographic map? what? Are we having the same discussion? Who said anything about topography? We're talking sub-terranean my friend. Your even mention of this fortifies my position that you don't know anything abouth this, and are trying to use an appeal to unknown authority regarding a conversation with a supposed expert on intelligence gathering methods. I say shame on him for telling you that its impossible.
I already justified my position. A few times. Now you are quiblling over cost complexity.
I never switched technologies. It was always about wave reflection. Sonar, radar whatever, no matter (its all waves). Plane, boat, segway, I don't care. You want high resolution, it's gonna cost more and take more time, that's just the way it is.
If you decide that you are the individual that decides what is practical and impractical, we are at in impasse.
I already justified my position. A few times. Now you are quiblling over cost complexity.
I never switched technologies. It was always about wave reflection. Sonar, radar whatever, no matter (its all waves). Plane, boat, segway, I don't care. You want high resolution, it's gonna cost more and take more time, that's just the way it is.
If you decide that you are the individual that decides what is practical and impractical, we are at in impasse.
Originally Posted by subaruguru
Yeah, except you left out the key part: Me, relying on firsthand accounts from CIA officials.
You--Relying on you claiming to personally know the technology makes it possible, yet being unable to cite the specific technology you'd advocate and further unable to begin to discuss costs or timeframes.
You--Relying on you claiming to personally know the technology makes it possible, yet being unable to cite the specific technology you'd advocate and further unable to begin to discuss costs or timeframes.
Cost and timeframe are not part of my arguement, they are part of yours.
Registered User
iTrader: (1)
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 3,312
From: UCIrvine
Car Info: '05 Crystal Grey Metallic WRX Sport Wagon
Originally Posted by subaruguru
Yeah, except you left out the key part: Me, relying on firsthand accounts from CIA officials.
You--Relying on you claiming to personally know the technology makes it possible, yet being unable to cite the specific technology you'd advocate and further unable to begin to discuss costs or timeframes.
You--Relying on you claiming to personally know the technology makes it possible, yet being unable to cite the specific technology you'd advocate and further unable to begin to discuss costs or timeframes.
Where are these first-hand accounts? Was it a personal conversation with CIA officials? If so...sounds like you're pulling an OLMEK...