Wednesday, January 31, 2018

A MUSIC VIDEO REMINDER

AMERICA ISN'T THE ONLY NATION THAT OPPOSES CHINA'S "NINE DASH LINE" CLAIMS IN THE SOUTH CHINA SEA:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FO9Nviw9FDM
US Navy  Photo : 091021-N-3283P-201 The Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force helicopter destroyer JS Kurama (DDH 144) leads ships 

 Sometimes to the consumer of main stream U.S news it seems America is alone in the world on just about every issue. Worse it seems like not only does no one share our views we depress the morale of the rest of the world.  The disputes in the South China Sea with their territorial claims to the entire sea as a virtual Chinese lake are an example. Based on our own media reports one would presume the situation is being exacerbated by the United States and our naval presence in the South China Sea. But the Chinese have already lost their case in the World court and the fact is their neighbors aren't ready at all to give up their ocean exclusive economic zones to the dragon. Yes China continues to build a big navy and coast guard and keeps building outposts on what used to be reefs. But the other nations in the region aren't sitting still and aren't demoralized. The US Navy is quite welcome in the region. The constant numbers comparisons between the Chinese People's Army's Navy and the US Navy ignore that if push comes to shove the U.S. Navy will not be alone. The main stream media likes to reinforce a thought that President Trump has articulated once in a while about certain of our defense "partners" around the world as if he was making a universal observation, which he surely is not. Yes we have partners who don't pay their fair share for their own defense and don't contribute quality forces to the security arrangements. This isn't the case in the China Seas. 
The link below is to a lively musical video showing some of the navies of the area who in fact are very much standing with the US on freedom of the seas. Indeed more properly we are standing with them. Morale suffering, this feature speaks volumes for the opposite view. 

Click on 

"South China Sea" We will destroy the Chinese fleet. Music video by "Bay of Bengal"

Tuesday, January 30, 2018

WILL WE RETURN TO SPACE CRAFT RECOVERY AT SEA?

NO MORE WINGS IN SPACE ?


USS ANCHORAGE LPD-23- US NAVY PHOTO


 SAN ANTONIO class  U.S. Navy amphibious transport dock ships look to become the space craft recovery system of the near future hoped for return to U.S. manned space flight. The USS ANCHORAGE ( LPD-23) recently recovered a mock up capsule. The exercise was to test the diving crew's and ship's systems ability to handle the job. The mock up was designed to simulate accurately the shape, size, weight, and center of gravity of the ORION crew module. The ORION is the crew module NASA intends to use for future "deep space" ( well, at least  beyond Earth Orbit maybe as far as Mars). All indications are that tests are going well and the Navy is on track to enter the space craft recovery game once again.

 The ANCHORAGE is just one of the San Antonio class Amphibs that NASA anticipates using for crew recovery when US manned space flight is resumed. The Orion is designed to carry up to six crew members  into outer space.  Nearly 45 years have passed since the US Navy recovered the Apollo 17 capsule in the Pacific. Navy equipment has changed quite a bit from that used in space craft recovery in the 60s and 70s . In those days Navy divers and helicopters plucked both crewmen and flight capsules from the water and transported them to near by air craft carriers. The Orion will be larger and heavier than any thing previously attempted. helicopters may be of utility in getting divers to the scene fast, but the heavy lift capabilities of the SAN ANTONIO class amphibious transport dock ships will be needed to recover the Orion from the water.  The ships were of course not originally purpose designed for space craft recovery but their equipment, meant for amphibious warfare, appears to be well suited to the task saving NASA billions in either developing a propitiatory recovery system or developing a more expensive winged vehicle capable of landing as the space shuttle did. Such a winged vehicle would add weight and additional systems to the basic space crew transport function and possibly require an extra powerful launch missile as yet not in the US inventory.  The return of the US Navy to space vehicle recovery tasking  using efficiently war ships designed and available for warfare purposes seems an astute use of tax payer monies. We like the idea. 

Here is a link to a NASA fact sheet on the ORION Recovery Operations to date. Things appear to be as they used to say in the 60s "A-OK".

ORION RECOVERY OPS FACT SHEET

ORION PROGRAM OVER VIEW: 

COUSIN OF THE GREAT NAMAZU CAPTURED IN MUDDY RUSSIAN WATERS

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=452&v=71YrvivMfcc

THANKFULLY HE WAS RELEASED ALIVE.
THE GREAT NAMAZU GIANT CATFISH RETIRED DEMIGOD

260 Pound "Monster" On a Light Spinning Rod
8.7 Feet in Length

 Fishermen watched the available video in awe and wonder as Yuri “ElDiablo” Grisendi presented this man / fish battle royal on his Catfish World site on YouTube. We had to show it to the Great Namazu, who watched in what can only be considered horror as one of his cousins was brought to heel on a cold winter day on an Eastern European river by a fisherman wielding only a light spinning rod.  Uttering the words "murder" and "torture" the Great Namazu seemed near the point of tears until the video ended with the fisherman kissing the great catfish and releasing it alive back into the river. Clearly shaken but relieved the his supreme catfishness cheer up visibly. We had asked for his comments a couple of years ago about the sport of catching man sized and larger fish. This was the first time we could show him an actual video of one of his brethren on the end of the line. When we thought he had sufficiently recovered from the viewing we again  asked for his comments. Reprinted below they mirror his comments of a couple of years ago.

 Please, Bipeds!  Eat more Chicken!

Link to the video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=452&v=71YrvivMfcc




Monday, January 29, 2018

THE HELIOS RUEHLS, INC. YELLOW LENS PROJECT FINAL REPORT TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC

OUR RESEARCH INDICATES THAT OFFICIAL REGULATORY AGENCY POSITIONS CONCERNING THE USE OF YELLOW LENSES IN LOW LIGHT LEVEL ENVIRONMENTS ARE OVER SIMPLIFIED AND INHIBIT POTENTIALLY USEFUL RESEARCH. SOME MANUFACTURER DISTRIBUTOR MARKETING COPY IS OVER STATED.  SOME POTENTIAL USERS COULD BE MISSING OUT ON A SIMPLE AND INEXPENSIVE VISUAL ENHANCEMENT FOR CERTAIN LOW LIGHT LEVEL SITUATIONS

(C) 2018 by Helios Ruehls, Inc.
army-pigeon.JPG
It may have all started with a pigeons eye (Photo: Public Domain) 
As cutting edge optical physics researchers the Helios Ruehls crew does occasionally get involved in some areas of more general interest. One such area is called their "Yellow Lens Project". Most people would call the optical element examined "sun glasses", but their actual focus is on low light level vision enhancement, which is a far cry, by the way, from "night vision". Interest in the effects of yellow tinted lenses has been around a long time. At one point the Coast Guard noticed that certain birds appear to have yellow irises such as the pigeon depicted above. A few decades ago the U.S. Coast Guard's  aviation branch ran tests involving the performance of caged pigeons in helicopters at detecting "international orange" the official color of personal flotation devices ("life preservers", "life jackets"). The idea behind the tests was to compare the performance of the caged pigeons against the typical performance of the human crewmen serving as look outs . As far as the tests went the findings were rather positive in favor of the birds. 

 However, newer search and detection technologies ,including some non optical  technologies, became available and funding for the bird vision project dried up. As time went by certain innovations in aircraft cockpit windscreen design and instrumentation made the use of yellow tinted, polarized lenses dangerous in certain aircraft cockpits and with certain flight instruments. Basically many aircraft wind screens are polarized today as are the covers for certain flight deck instruments. Looking out through such windscreens or at such encased instruments while wearing polarized lenses creates a double effect that often results in being unable to see critical flight instruments or making the view out the polarized aircraft wind screen unreliable. The FAA regulations now virtually ban the use of polarized lenses and yellow tinted polarized lenses in particular from aircraft cockpits generally. Some have interpreted the regulation to bar yellow lenses regardless of polarization from the cockpit generally. Yet our research indicates that many aviators who fly older or simpler air craft might benefit from such eye wear under a variety of specific circumstances.  We have learned that many pilots of simple or older aircraft swear by the polarized yellow lens eye wear and some commercial pilots swear by un-polarized yellow lens eye wear even in the cockpits where the polarized version is definitely banned. 

 Thus based on our initial research we believe that a somewhat over generalized ban by the FAA has had a retarding effect on yellow lens research. We don't disagree with the FAA's ban on the use of polarized lens generally or yellow tinted polarized lenses in particular under a wide variety of circumstances, but think such lenses could be highly beneficial under certain circumstances. Those circumstances might include use in small planes without polarized windscreens in low light level situations such as nearing sunset or just after sunrise, or rainy conditions. Unpolarized light yellow tinted lenses might be of benefit to some pilots in similar ambient light conditions even in cockpits with polarized wind screens and instrument panels.  We believe that interpretations of the FAA ban as general and complete inhibit the needed research to create reliable guides on the use of such eye wear in aviation.

 Many shooters have found yellow lens eye wear to be vision enhanceive and the lens color is popular in shooter safety glasses. But too many manufacturers went overboard in their advertising and market yellow tinted eye wear as "night vision" eye wear or otherwise imply that the lenses enhance vision "at night". The Federal Trade Commission picked up on this and rightly labeled such advertising as "false". Unfortunately, we found the Federal Trade Commission was as unspecific and over generalized in their warnings as the manufacturers and distributors of the eye wear were in their "night" related claims of benefits. The net result is that the large body of evidence for the benefits of yellow tinted lenses in certain low light level applications has been buried under a combination of advertising and regulatory agency over statements. Below we endeavor to outline what we have been able to determine from applying simply good forensic investigative practice to a large body of authoritative literature and a small amount of original research conducted on our own. 


The truth,as indicated by our review of authoritative
 literature and interviews with actual users, is that most
 people could benefit from the use of yellow tinted 
 lenses  in lower ambient light levels on cloudy  rainy 
days, and first and last light. If anything can help "at 
night"  is the controversy that brought Helios
 Ruehls  into the study of existing authoritative 
literature , some physical testing of our own, and 
some interviews with users. Owning a  great pair of 
sunglasses is important for most people who spend 
any length of time outdoors routinely. UV rays are 
the number one cause of cataracts, macular, 
degeneration, and skin cancer around the eyes.
Ask any sailor,soldier, police officer, fireman, or 
outdoors-man, and they'll tell you how critical it is for 
them to have a durable pair of glare-resistant
sunglasses...and for them, not just any pair of
 sunglasses will do. Observe the marketing appeal from
 the makers of the Apache 400 "military" style 
sunglasses below.
"They were throwing flash bangs at us to disorient us, but thank god we had the new standard issue Apache 400 sunglasses. We were able to see exactly where we were going and where the enemy was. It's why I'm still here today."


Austin Grant, Special Ops

Thankfully, recent military advances in lens technology have taken sunglasses to a new level. Better UV protection and glare resistance in the form of polarized and other technologies have led to sunglasses that are many times better than your everyday sunglasses of yesteryear. But before you run out and buy a new pair, we think you need to hear about the research of Helios Ruehls, Inc. into tinted eye wear lens technology.  

 You also need to know about tinted lenses generally. The military type eye wear sell for between a reported $240 per pair to an occasional $79 or so on sale. Other yellow to amber tinted lenses make similar claims and are advertised on TV for prices like 19.95 . Based on their advertising, the "military like lenses" appear to be available in a shades of yellow, yellow /amber tint and a blue tint. We do not sell eye wear or draw any commission on any sales. We mentioned one vendor in this post simply to give you more information and an example of a non prescription/ non custom made product. WE ALSO DON'T RECOMMEND NOR DISPARAGE ANY OF THE "SUNGLASSES" OR TINTED LENSES THAT ARE PRESENTLY ON THE MARKET. What we are critical of is the apparent misalignment of certain marketing copy with the scientific facts relative to such lenses and the resulting apparent regulatory over kill relative to yellow tinted lenses. 

 Helios Ruehls, Inc. is still studying tinted lenses mostly from a marine navigation and aviation utility angle. We have distributed to a very limited group our initial preliminary report on usage in driving and to a lesser extent marine navigation. We are wrapping up our study of the usage of yellow tinted lenses in aviation and the related regulation. We believe the findings found there are far more reliable than the advertising copy of any tinted eye wear distributors.

 Two observations triggered the study of tinted lens performance by Helios Ruehls, Inc. First there was an observable growing popularity in the use of yellow tinted lenses, and a number of manufacturers / distributors were selling such as "night driving glasses". This triggered a complaint by the Federal Trade Commission of "misleading advertising". Second there were glowing reports on the effectiveness of yellow tinted lenses as enhancive of vision in low light levels. The initial research by Helios Ruehls revealed the following that in part explain the apparent contradictions:

1. "Night is a term describing part of the daily earth rotational cycle. It is not a description of any particular ambient light level."The ambient light levels that may be found during the time frame of "night" include brightly lighted ball parks and parking lots, streets with ordinary street lighting, conditions created by the various phases of the moon and available starlight away from urban light sources, to the serious "pitch darkness" of a densely cloudy, moonless night at sea. Helios Ruehls, Inc. found that the Federal Board of Trade's observations about advertising yellow tinted lenses as "night driving glasses" or anything similar indicating that such lenses had any sort of "night vision" quality amounts to a misleading claim is thoroughly correct. 

 However, Helios Ruehls research also confirmed that varying considerably with the individual user's personal vision physical characteristics, yellow tinted lenses could be a significant aid in visual perception under a wide variety of relatively low ambient light conditions."Night" being a time frame in which a wide variety of ambient light conditions occur, any total formal ban or public avoidance of the use of yellow or amber tinted lenses during the time frame of "night" could be counter productive under a variety of ambient light conditions. 

2. Helios Ruehls, Inc. found that the nearly uniform positive reports coming from certain US Air Force populations were  indicative of two facts: (1) Yellow tinted lenses more probably than not, do provide some visual perception benefit under some circumstances.(2) The reporting Air Force Population mentioned in the authoritative literature reviewed more probably than not represented an unusually uniform population characterized by a relatively narrow and young age band, and an unusually uniform proportion of the population with 20/20 uncorrected vision.

 Returning for a moment to the Apache 400 models. These may be ordered in both an apparent (based on advertising illustrations) yellow/amber tint and a blue tint. Helios Ruehls, in our own experiments, found that the  lighter the yellow tint , the wider variety of low ambient light levels the lens produced vision enhancive effects in. Conversely, the lighter the yellow tint the less benefit that could be derived in relatively bright sunlight. A yellow / amber tint or amber / yellow would fail as low light enhancive in lowering light conditions far sooner than a light yellow tint. However, the more amber the tint, the more utility in bright light. In fact amber and rose tints are often perceived as "color perception enhancive" by many reporting users. Moreover their red elements tend to enhance contrast and enhance depth perception. Amber to brown lenses are good in partly cloudy to sunny conditions. We have not tested the Apache 400 lenses and do not know if their apparent lighter amber tint extends their range of usefulness into lower light levels than conventional amber to brown lenses. 

 Blue tinted lenses, which the Apache 400 also comes in enhance contours, and colors generally and are considered vision enhancive in misty, foggy or snowy conditions. Our research however was focused on low light level visual enhancement. We could not recommend the Apache 400 eye wear specifically for that purpose. We could not tell from the advertising linked to, whether or not the Apache 400 models could be ordered with distance or astigmatism corrections.

 In fact in our search to build and test low light level vision enhancive eye wear we did not find a single mass market product that met all of our criteria, which was based on anticipated military needs as follows:

1. To extend the period of usefulness in low light levels the yellow tint should be as light as possible. 

2. The yellow tinted lenses should be polarized, or subjected to a similar process which both sharpened their glare reduction in low light and made them more useful when brighter conditions or "flash" were encountered such as on coming automotive head lights.

3.The yellow tinted lenses should be impact and shatter resistant to near safety glasses standards, yet lightweight. 

4. The yellow tinted polarized lenses should be able to be ground to take most common distance vision and astigmatic corrections, as outside of the military aviation community 20/20 uncorrected vision is not a strict requirement.  

 When we sought to have glasses made to these specifications in one market (New Orleans) we found that only a small minority of optical dispensing shops, both national chains and local or regional , could produce a pair meeting all of our specifications. The eye wear retailers who could produce our "test glasses" were affiliated with a single international lens manufacturer.  Our cost for the lenses alone were in excess of $300. 

 By contrast grey tinted lenses, polarized, impact resistant, and distant/ astigmatic corrected were commonly available at a wide variety of optical retailers. Grey tints, especially light grey are the best "all purpose" tints for a variety of light levels including cloudy and rainy days. But light yellow, corrected and polarized appears the best for the widest variety of low light conditions. Basically a consumer can walk into most optical retailers and order their correction as "grey tinted sunglasses" and come out with a very effective pair of "sun glasses" , depending on correction, thinness of the lens desired, impact resistance specified, frames etc for under $150 to over $300. Unless you have 20/20 uncorrected these will serve you better than the $79 to $240 "military" style "sunglasses". We think if you can benefit from the mass produced higher quality uncorrected lenses in the choice between yellow /amber and blue you will get more usage out of the blue. But the color enhancement, and contrast of those "military" style yellow amber red combination lenses when slipped over a pair of naturally seeing 20/20 human eyes is truly awesome.  

 We think the science is probably settled on the various tinted lenses but not very well understood by the marketing departments of much of the retail segment. Everything from light yellow to dark brown is generally marketed under the heading of "sun glasses", a few retailers are trying to market light yellow lenses as "night driving glasses"and running afoul of the Board of Trade. The FAA clearly discourages the use of yellow lens eye wear and this is especially appropriate in the case of polarized cockpit wind screens and instrument covers. There is no getting around that any tint once conditions are dark enough obstructs visual perception. The evidence is that the point of no gain varies widely among individuals. We do not agree with any general admonition that light yellow lenses, especially polarized and corrected would not be of visual perception assistance in "night driving" but hold that the effect varies with the level of ambient light and the vision of the individual user. The least controversial advertising claims come from the sale of yellow lenses to shooting sports enthusiasts . Configured as shooting safety glasses if the lenses make the grade for impact resistance standards no one seems to dispute the claims of vision enhancement made by shooters who favor the lenses. 


If you are a "Sunglasses" or "Night Driving Glasses" manufacturer, retailer, lens producer, or optical dispenser and would like to align your product descriptions, advertising, etc. with the upcoming copyrighted detailed research report by Helios Ruehls, or commission further investigation write to:

Helios Ruehls, Inc.
951 Marina Drive
Slidell, LA 70452  

RE: Yellow Lens Project, Initial Report

Please include your phone and E mail contact information.

RUSSIAN Su-27 INTERCEPTOR DANGEROUSLY BUZZED A U.S. NAVY EP-3 E ARIES II PATROL CRAFT OVER THE BLACK SEA On MONDAY JANUARY 29,2018

THE BEAR FLIES RECKLESSLY, SHADES OF THE COLD WAR

File:Su-27 05.jpg
RUSSIAN Su-27 (Photo (US DOD) 


 Earlier today (January 29, 2018 ) a Russian jet intercepted a U.S. Navy surveillance air craft over the Black Sea in a threatening and unsafe manner reminiscent of the Cold war coming within 5 feet of the US aircraft and directly across its flight path.  This is just the most recent of such unsafe interaction between  the forces of Russia and the United States in the Black Sea Region of late. Close approach for identification purposes is not illegal in international air space under international law but "close" means close enough for visual identification, not close enough to risk collision or for the approached aircraft to react to the approaching air craft's slip stream.  The Russian jet's action "mission killed" the USN aircraft's mission as it was required to return early.

 The event was obviously an intended "mission kill" on the part of the Russians because while the dangerous approach lasted only critical seconds the Russian fighter jet had been shadowing and harassing the US air craft for 2 hours and 40 minutes total. Prior, on November 25, 2016 a similar Russian fighter /interceptor buzzed a US P8-A over the Black Sea. The Russian Ministry of Defense described the incident as a "Greeting Maneuver" and the US DOD described the incident as "safe and professional" yet obviously the "greeting maneuver" was unusual enough to be news worthy. On September 27 2016 a Russian Su-27 flew within 10 feet of a Navy P-8A Poseidon surveillance aircraft in a maneuver not described as "professional and safe".   The Russians have also been "buzzing" US ships visiting the Black Sea.

The Bear shares the Black Sea, an inland body of water that connects to the Mediterranean Sea via a narrow strait with other nations such as Turkey, Georgia, Ukraine, Bulgaria, 


Map Courtesy CIA WORLD FACT BOOK, BLACK SEA REGION AT TOP

 A couple of year ago the Russians garnered world naval attention when they net worked a number of small patrol boats in the area and fired successfully missals at targets in Syria. Clearly the Russians would like to treat the Black Sea as a Russian Lake. How inconvenient for the Bear to have neighbors and a connection to the sea.  

Tuesday, January 23, 2018

THE REAL LIFE "ROSIE THE RIVETER" DIED SATURDAY AT AGE 96

Naomi Parker Fraley, AKA "Rosie the Riveter" 



 Naomi Parker Fraley who died Saturday at the age of 96 is widely accepted as the model for the famous WWII poster titled "WE CAN DO IT". During WWII she was a 20 year old production line worker at the Alameda Naval Station, Alameda, California. She was just one of the millions of American women who provided much of the war materials production labor force; in that rare time of unity among the American people when we were united against a truly dreaded common enemy.
NAOMI PARKER FRALEY IMAGES FROM A TWEET BY 
Kim Shepard
 For many years Ms Fraley's image was misidentified as that of another woman who bore a striking resemblance to her, Ms Geraldine Hoff Doyle a 17 year old worker in the same plant. MS Doyle died at age 86 in 2010 before learning of the misidentification, Historian James J. Kimble of Seton Hall University has stated that Doyle who resembles Fraley was first identified as the model for the poster based on her photo from the time and  in subsequent historical narratives she was accepted as the model for "Rosie the Riveter" until 2015 when actual photos connected to the iconic poster's production were uncovered clearly bearing the label of the woman now known as Naomi Parker Fraley. Both Doyle and Fraley were simply photographed at work, never paid as a model, or notified that their stylized image was being fashioned into a poster.  Neither woman ever sought or received a dime in compensation and by all reports were simply happy to have contributed to the war effort. 
Naomi Parker Fraley was photographed as she worked at the Alameda Naval Station.
NAOMI PARKER FARLEY  AT WORK ON THE PRODUCTION LINE: More Information
and images @
https://www.cnn.com/2018/01/23/us/fraley-rosie-the-riveter-dies/index.html
hith inspiration rosie riveter dies
Geraldine Doyle : You can read more about Ms Doyle at
http://www.history.com/news/inspiration-for-iconic-rosie-the-riveter-image-dies.

Monday, January 22, 2018

ANATOMY OF TWO "SOFT KILLS"


WINTER ICE ON THE ST. LAWRENCE MISSION KILLS USS LITTLE ROCK TILL MARCH



111006-N-DX698-001 WASHINGTON (Oct. 4, 2011) An artist rendering of the littoral combat ship USS Little Rock (LCS 9). (U.S. Navy photo illustration by Jay M. Chu/Released)

Virtual Reality Tour of USS LITTLE ROCK 

 A "mission kill" is anything that stops a naval asset from being able to complete its mission within
the expected time frame. A mission kill can occur from the application of kinetic energy such as shot and shell resulting in physical damage short of constructive total loss or actual sinking. Other types of "mission kills" may include geographic blockage stopping a naval asset from reaching its intended theater of operations. Imagine part of the Atlantic fleet attempting to reach elements of the Pacific fleet being held up by a physical blockage or mechanical breakdown on the Panama Canal, which by the way is now operated under contract by COSCO Shipping of China. A mission kill can also be induced through sabotage, the proverbial monkey wrench in the works, that keeps a ship in the yards or at the repair dock longer than anticipated. Our Navy is now down, thanks to the Obama administration and his more recent predecessors, to less than 300 ships to protect our global interests against the potential depredations of a number of actual enemies such as Iran, and potential opponents such as China and Russia. China alone now has a 600+ ship navy, not of the highest quality but constantly improving. At our present ship count we can't afford any mission kills. The latest two we have done to our selves.

 Our newest littoral warship the USS LITTLE ROCK (LCS 9) won't be available to fleet commanders till some time in March. She was is stuck in Montreal, Canada in mid winter and was caught by ice in the St. Lawrence. As you may well imagine this good will tour wasn't the brainchild of the Commanding officer, but we'll give you one guess who gets the blame , if any, for this "mission kill".
The closure of the St. Lawrence Seaway is a not unexpected weather triggered event. Yet the ship was ordered on this "mission" and has now been lost for the purpose of any combat or presence mission in any contested part of the world until mother nature decides to let her go.

Read the Washington Post Account of the Adventure of the USS Arkansas: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2018/01/22/the-navy-built-a-fast-agile-warship-for-440m-its-been-stuck-in-ice-since-christmas-eve/?utm_term=.3b9024c20cdf


A COLLISION AT SEA PUTS THE USS FITZGERALD IN THE REPAIR YARD FOR POSSIBLY TWO YEARS


USS FITZGERALD IN HAPPIER DAYS, PHOTO USN


 In  June of 2017 the USS FITZGERALD (DDG 62) collided with a merchant ship in the Far East, and on January 18,2018 the damaged ship reached a repair facility in Mississippi. The FITZGERALD was so heavily damaged in the accidental collision that she had to be delivered to the Pascagoula repair yard by the heavy lift transport M/V TRANSSHELF. There were lives lost in this collision which resulted in what will probably be a two year "mission kill". The self inflicted "mission kill' of the FITZGERALD will be especially hard felt as it was an active and deployed to the Pacific fleet guided missile destroyer. Unlike the USS LITTLE ROCK the FITZGERALD was on station and working in the active national defense. Now the hard pressed Pacific fleet is denied her services possibly for as long as two years. The Navy has placed the lion's share of the blame on the Commanding officer, but there are voices who think the contributing factors in the form of standard Navy / Fleet bridge team organization and manning standards played a major part and that such an accident was inevitable due to the standard procedure tending to dilute situational awareness on the bridge. Could this be a case of a self inflicted "soft kill" as a result of administrative overkill /micro management. We really should at least ask, based on the standards in force today, how much information going into the navigation bridge really needs to go there in ordinary cruising conditions vice information that should be gathered, processed, and filtered by the CIC (Combat Information Center). There is one thing for certain. We can't afford mission kill, and we have no excuse for Navy brass generated mission kills.

Read the U.S. Naval Institute's coverage of the collsiion: https://news.usni.org/2017/06/16/destroyer-uss-fitzgerald-collides-japanese-merchant-ship








DRIVING SUSPECTED CONSERVATIVE VOICES FROM THE INTERNET

NAMAZU ON ATTEMPTS TO TURN THE INTERNET INTO A DEMOCRATIC PARTY PROPAGANDA ORGAN


THE GREAT NAMAZU STAR OF LEGEND, MYTHOLOGY, STAGE, SCREEN, AND OUTER SPACE

GREETINGS BIPEDS! 
 I'm  standing in for our Editor in Chief Johnas Presbyter today in alerting you to issues we've recently faced with TWITTER.  As most of you know our staff including Johnas are mostly former and retired naval establishment types and a bit on the conservative side, but I must say not exactly dogmatic. More over most of the founding members of the American Admiralty Information Net work are military veterans of the Cold War era and certainly no fans of Russia. But if you read this blog with any regularity you are well aware that none are registered democrats or socialists, or big fans of Hillary and Bernie. We all here at AAB are well aware of the lack of privacy on the Internet. We are here after all to publish useful or entertaining information and frankly to promote ideas that we think will work for the betterment of the nation. Some of those ideas are technological, some naval in character, some indeed are political. 

 We have entered cyber space because it is affordable, we don't need the funds to buy a news paper facility or TV channel. Indeed our "dashboard" for this blog is provided free of charge. However that is not to say that our dashboard provider does this sort of thing out of altruism. Bloggers provide the content that brings the readers into the dashboard provider's universe and the provider controls the advertising revenues and derives other income streams. We fully anticipate that our free dashboard provider is collecting data that is of use to them. 

 We also post to Twitter quite frequently with links back to our posts. Twitter has been an excellent means of drawing public attention to our observations and opinions, and free services such as on line nautical courses. With Twitter as with our dashboard provider we produce content, Twitter controls advertising and any other revenues derived from people visiting their site. What no one expected from Twitter was behavior similar to the main stream media attempting to police any sites that appeared to be favorable to Mr. Trump, the Republicans, or Conservatives generally. Even if we expected that we didn't think we would draw any fire since I personally have chided such conservative figures as Rush Limbaugh in print on this site. We have proposed solutions to the growing issue of under employment in this country guaranteed to offend conservatives, but we also don't fail to expose the hypocrisy of the left. Frankly I have to admit that we make no attempt to be "fair and balanced" but we do not disguise opinion as news. So we were quite concerned when we received the following from our server: 


"Dear Johnas Presbyter,
As part of our recent work to understand Russian-linked activities on Twitter during the 2016 U.S. presidential election, we identified and suspended a number of accounts that were potentially connected to a propaganda effort by a Russian government-linked organization known as the Internet Research Agency.
Consistent with our commitment to transparency, we are emailing you because we have reason to believe that you either followed one of these accounts or re tweeted or liked content from these accounts during the election period. This is purely for your own information purposes, and is not related to a security concern for your account.
We are sharing this information so that you can learn more about these accounts and the nature of the Russian propaganda effort. You can see examples of content from these suspended accounts on our blog if you're interested.
People look to Twitter for useful, timely, and appropriate information. We are taking active steps to stop malicious accounts and Tweets from spreading, and we are determined to keep ahead of the tactics of bad actors. For example, in recent months we have developed new techniques to identify accounts manipulating our platform, have improved our process for challenging suspicious accounts, and have introduced new measures designed to identify and take action on coordinated malicious activity. In 2018, we are building on these improvements. Our blog also contains more information about these efforts.
People come to Twitter to see what's happening in the world. We are committed to making it the best place to do that and to being transparent with the people who use and trust our platform.
Twitter"

The inference was very oblique but clear. Twitter suspects that our old Cold War warriors might have been complicit with the Russian buggie man who "stole" the coronation from Hillary.  Frankly we don't believe Russian denials of attempts to influence our elections or Democratic claims that such attempts are at all effective. Indeed we were among the first to explain in no uncertain and verifiable terms Why Hillary Lost. If you've already read that post you know we fingered America's Christians for upsetting the scheduled coronation. While that would normally make the PC crowd happy we are hated because we didn't see anything wrong with Christians voting their conscience. Since the thinly veiled chastisement was directed to Johnas he responded. His initial response may be read below:

"I have no idea what you expect me to do. I like or retweet whatever I happen to agree with, or sometimes I respond to postings I don't agree with.  These sites don't carry labels that say "Linked to Russian Government sponsored Internet Research Agency." If you are going to assume the role of PC police you ought to eliminate all accounts and write your own content. If you're going to be a platform for the public let the public write the content and you can sell the advertising. If you are going to dictate a PC anti Trump, pro globalists, pro Islamic , pro unrestricted immigration editorial policy to your unpaid content writers you will soon be writing your own content anyway. Make up your minds, are you a platform and forum provider or liberal on line magazine? "

Well, OG (Old Guy the real head honcho round these parts) asked me to write this notice to our blog visitors since Johnas is so angry he can't seem to get a coherent sentence out just now. So the above and foregoing will have to do it. We've already been denied advertising, and the democrats in office in Louisiana have killed our status as an Amazon portal through taxation so we have been effectively demonetized for some time now. If we finally disappear from cyber space, now you know why. 

Namazu

Thursday, January 11, 2018

REPORTED MAJOR MARITIME PIRACY AND ARMED ROBBERY INCIDENTS AGAINST SHIPS AT 22 YEAR LOW


Painting of Blackbeard 1922 by Frank E Schoonover (Public Domain) 

By Editor in Chief Johnas Presbyter

Early in my sea going career , about the start of year three I was in the deck department of a Coast Guard cutter making anti piracy patrols. The year was 1966 long before the public became aware of piracy as a 20th century problem. The patrols were called "The Campache Patrols" of the U.S. Coast Guard conducted by ocean going cutters mostly out of Texas ports and directed toward the Bay of Campache off of the Yucatan peninsular. The Vietnam war was on and that conflict dominated American media coverage of naval / military events. Other than the commercial fishermen of Coastal Texas, few Americans outside of the Coast Guard were even aware that piracy drew the attention of any branch of the U.S. military. But for the affected commercial fishermen who were caught by the pirates operating in and near the Bay of Campache it was a serious and deadly problem. Piracy never disappeared in the 20th century despite the common belief that larger' faster, radio, equipped commercial ships had put the practice to rest. That belief would remain the basis of public opinion on the matter until piracy against major ships again began to appear and increase in frequency around the waters of the Strait of Malacca and off of Somalia in the late 1980s and 90s. The truth was that piracy was practiced against yachts, and commercial fishing boats without let up since time out of mind and the 20th century was no exception. So when we learned that The International Chamber of Commerce's International Maritime Bureau (IBM) announced recently that annual maritime piracy and armed robbery incidents reached a 22 year low in 2017 we had to take the news with a grain of salt.

 The IMB does a great job of tracking piracy and crime generally against commercial seagoing cargo carriers, tankers, and passenger ships above 1600 gross registered tons. According to the IMB only 180 incidents were reported to it in 2017 compared to the previous low of 188 incidents reported in 1995. According to the IMB  in 2017 136 commercial seagoing vessels were boarded, there were 22 attempted attacks, 16 vessels were fired upon and 6 hijacked. In 15 separate incidents 91 crew members were taken hostage, 75 were kidnapped from their vessels in 13 other incidents, three crew members were killed and six injured.   

 Let's be frank, as Merchant Mariners we find this level of piracy and maritime crime alarming even if it does represent a downturn from recent statistics. The other thing we feel compelled to point out is that there has never been anything as well funded or organized as the IMB for vessels under 1600 gross registered tons. How many tugs, crew boats, offshore service vessels, yachts, and commercial fishing vessels experienced piracy or robbery incidents is not as easy to determine as the IMB's well oiled intelligence system makes it to track depredations on large commercial vessels. We suspect that crime against smaller ocean going vessels has not improved much if at all since 1966. 

We're happy to pass along the word that crime against big ships went down last year, but we still advise extreme caution and use of the best intelligence available to avoid pirate infested waters regardless of the size of your ship when making your voyage plan. If you are shepherding smaller craft you must dig even deeper for piracy intelligence and you should take the time to intelligently plan your voyage dock to dock.

Captain Jack Sparrow is an amusing fictional character. Real pirates yesterday and today are deadly seriously evil and should be avoided and defended against. Good luck out there! To find links to sources of constantly updated information on piracy click on our News Service:  http://americanadmiraltybooks.blogspot.com/p/news-service.html

Johnas Presbyter, Master, Pilot
Editor in Chief

Wednesday, January 10, 2018

OPRAH VS THE DONALD

OPRAH VS THE DONALD: 

  The Great Catfish Explains All: 

Updated 1/24/2017 w/ Electoral College estimate: 
Updated 1/25/17 Oprah Drops Out 
SCROLL DOWN FOR UPDATES IN RED

NAMAZU, RETIRED GIANT CATFISH DEMIGOD TURNED POLITICAL OBSERVER

GREETINGS AMERICAN BI PEDS! 

Has it really come to this? Have all the statesmen left the planet, or at least America? The American Main Stream Media (MSM) is all agog over an Oprah Winfrey run for the White House. So far the run exists only in their overheated imaginations.
 File:Oprah in 2014.jpg
Image of Oprah licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic license.

Oprah enjoys international name recognition, has the personal fortune to start a run and the perceived popularity to draw the big donors. But to the catfish mind' which so far you will remember. has demonstrated political infallibility; that popularity is dependent on remaining in the entertainment industry and could be shattered in the rough and tumble of politics. But the powers that be in the MSM and the DNC are thinking.....

Oprah could actually win against Trump. Unfortunately for these victims of stinking thinking that is only true if the Trump camp doesn't get the following out on Oprah. 

(1) Oprah introduced the world to Obama and backed Hillary that alone should keep the Trump camp encamped. 

(2) As a Commander in Chief Trump, who at least attended a military high school, observes common military courtesy, and seems well liked by the troops (consider that the Marines had to draft the crews for MARINE ONE under Obama and have a large list of volunteers to serve Trump). Oprah has zero experience and training and is basically perceived as anti military. Trump will have four years experience as Commander in Chief by the time of the next election and all of the indications are that his tenure in that role will be successful. Voters think the role of the President as Commander in Chief is important. 

(3) Oprah has experience traveling the third world and giving away money, which of course, was hers to give. Once President, she will likely continue to travel the third world and give away money, but it will come from US taxpayers. Trump has experience all over the world in doing business, for a profit, and is committed to getting the best trade deals for America.

 (4) While the mainstream media makes much of Trump's boorish behavior towards women in his younger days and the fact that he has married three times. The fact is; he is married, has great children, his wife makes a fabulous first lady, and he is openly Christian (Presbyterian) . Oprah, would enter the White House a single woman, co habitating with her unmarried partner, and is of unknown religious belief. She has been a strong backer of our former President, who did much to advance Muslim privilege. Again this will not attract any of Trump's base away. It will not endear her to Catholics or Evangelicals who may have held their noses last time and voted for Hillary.  . 

(5) Just as all male public office seekers have their sex lives thoroughly explored, Oprah won't get a pass. While there probably won't be any boorish behavior or allegations of forced sex, she is a single woman with multiple sex partners, and no marriages or children, not some one America's moms would really like to see in the White House even if they do enjoy her on the big and small screens. Trump's sex life on the other hand is old news, probably won't get much play, and his base has demonstrated disinterest. Oprah's sex life will be new and interesting in the public media and for the first time subject to moral judgments by married Christian America. 

 In short, while Oprah enjoys great popularity generally and is clearly the MSM's choice of the moment she can't touch Trump's base, which if they turn out will make it an uphill run for Oprah. Her pro-abortion backing and public backing of both Obama and Hillary might finally wake up the Catholic vote which split some what in the last election. Some Catholic clergymen when questioned by the laity about voting for Hillary given her pro-abortion stance told Catholics that "abortion was only one issue". Catholic clergy on Catholic TV are pretty uniform in holding that "the lives of the unborn are not negotiable". An appeal to Catholics by the Trump camp pointing out the litigation started by Obama and supported by Hillary against  The Little Sisters of the Poor attempting to force agnostic social policy that conflicts with the teachings of the Church down the throats of Catholic institutions would probably swing much of the left leaning Catholic vote that held their nose and voted for Hillary over to Trump. This is especially true if the nation doesn't fall apart under Trump, all indications are that his popularity is growing among Catholics.  Oprah will not draw a monolithic women's vote, women make up most of the leadership in the pro life movement, moms can not relate to her as a public office holder, she is harmless on TV but making policies that affect family life is another thing. She will not draw as much of the black vote as the DNC thinks, many blacks are Southern Baptists and will have moral objections to her, she is also a billionaire which a lot of the black community can't relate to. While this is also true of Trump if he produces solid achievements in raising black employment levels and wages in the next three years the black vote may not be a block vote.

 I think this is why Trump's reaction to the media's coronation of Oprah was so bemused...bring it on. She would be a very weak challenger despite the MSM's impression. This is a nation of as much as 79% REGISTERED Christian congregants. That means that an overwhelming majority of the population is so adherent to Christian beliefs that they dig deep into their pockets monthly to support their local congregation. Oprah's record is mildly but clearly anti Christian, her life style is non Christian.(See:THE GREAT CATFISH EXPLAINS THE HILLARY LOSS )

 She'll get none of the conservative or pragmatic vote, little of the Christian vote, some but not all of the independents, quite a bit of the black vote, and the women's vote will not be what the DNC thinks.  If the Trump camp utilizes any of the lessons learned from their last campaign and four years in office Oprah would be lucky to draw 46% of the popular vote. If the Democrats don't field an actual statesmen with a platform moved closer to center, Oprah is probably the best they can do selling the same old lefty globalists anti Christian, pro Islamic , open borders platform that we have seen the last 9 years. 

 If anything, if the draft Oprah movement results in an actual run at the Presidency, the Democratic party is finished, they shrunk the tent too much. Despite her star quality in the entertainment world, Oprah will be reduced to just a rich college drop out black business woman with no relevant experience that any one would consider in a president, and questionable moral ethical personal values system. (Trump withstood much of the same criticisms but on a second run it will be stale news),  If she stays out of politics Oprah can enter her retirement a lauded public figure, her lefty globalists views never seriously challenged. As long as she isn't put in charge of tax payer money people will acknowledge her charitable efforts as good. If she gets down and dirty in the political arena her life will never be the same and her wellspring of public good will will evaporate. 

 If she is smarter than the MSM and DNC idiots she'll quash this speculation right away and slide back into the king maker chair she occupied for Obama. If her ego is bigger than her brain she will throw her designer head wear into the ring never to emerge clean again. Those who say she is concerned about her role in history speculate that this would drive her to accept the challenge. If she takes a realistic and dispassionate view of her personal role in history she will realize that she has everything to lose by taking this roll of the dice.

I'm a giant catfish and I approved this message.

NAMAZU

Update January 24, 2017. 

 Well, American Bipeds after the editorial board read my screed above they decided to run an Oprah vs Trump contest through an average of the non MSM publishing political pundits to see how the "fair and balanced" or at least neutral political analysts would predict such a contest at the Electoral College level. It looks like this averaged out: Oprah 189 Electoral College votes to Trump's 349. More over the Blue Red map of states looks worse for the Democrats than it did in the last election. All the blue is concentrated on the North East Coast and West Coast. All of the "Great Fly Over States are bright red. TO anyone traveling through the US other than these far corners the Democrats will seem more like a radical and dangerous minority in the eyes of "typical Americans" than ever before despite MSM attempts to portray it otherwise. I continue to stand by my  advice to Oprah, don't get pushed into this, you will cause the reelection of Donald Trump, something we know you don't want to do. There is a reason why "the Donald" met the news of your possible candidacy with a "bring it on attitude". 

UPDATE JANUARY 25, 2017 

 I guess the fun is over Bi peds. The news today is that mighty Oprah has publicly stated that she is not interested in being in the 2020 Presidential race. We think this is very wise of her. We suggest to the Dims that they use this opportunity to search for a successful democratic governor, if such a thing exists ; change their position on abortion, and find someone with a statesman like personality vice a "vibrant" personality if they want to make a decent showing in 2020. America is looking for a return to Juedao -Christian ethics and common sense in government and reliable mature leadership. We are tired of serial malgovernment, partisian politics, and flash bang personality contests passing as election contests. If all we are offered in 2020 is more tax and spend, shove down your throats liberal bunk, its going to be the Donald by a landslide. The first political party to grow up wins. 

Namazu

Saturday, January 6, 2018

ARGENTINA PROVES IT CAN NOT READ INTERNATIONAL LAW

ARGENTINA'S OVER STATEMENTS RELATIVE TO THEIR OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF CLAIMS AND THE RULING OF THE UN'S CLCS COMMISSION


The Flag Of Argentina, Becoming A Symbol For Delusional Thinking

ARGENTINE PUBLIC PRONOUNCEMENTS TO THE CONTRARY THE UNITED NATIONS DID NOT RECOGNIZE THE CLAIMS OF ARGENTINA TO THE PORTIONS OF THE OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF OCCUPIED BY THE FALKLANDS ISLANDS AND OTHER NON ARGENTINE ENTENTES.

 In April of 2009 Argentina submitted a formal claim to the United Nations Commission on the Limits of The Continental Shelf asserting their claim over the their allotted portion of the Continental shelf under UNCLOS (United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea) . In that claim they also put forward a claim over the continental shelf under the Falkland Islands, South Georgia, The Shetlands, and the British portion of the Antarctic continental shelf. In 2016 the commission acknowledged receipt and plenary session processing of the Argentine claim and preliminarily approving the Argentine claim to what is approximately their allotted portion of their own adjacent outer continental shelf and specifically did not rule on the extend claim to the Falklands, South Georgia, the Shetlands, and the British portion of the Antarctic Outer Continental Shelf (OCS). Immediately Argentina started making international claims and printing headlines that Argentina had been granted a 35% increase in their portion of the OCS including those portions clearly belonging to Great Britain. This was at best a gross over statement and misinterpretation of the actual Commission ruling, and at worse a bold faced and deliberate lie to further their cause and weary the Brits. 

 The claim to the British portion of the Antarctic OCS is the most utterly ridiculous. No territorial claims are being considered relative to the Antarctic continent which by an extended treaty remains for the time being in the international commons. Certainly a committee wouldn't rule on such a claim at this time and certainly not without notifying Great Britain. Failing or refusing to rule on claims blatantly beyond the scope of the UNCLOS can hardly be characterized as "approval" of such claims. By receiving an answer to a filing that contained such claims without the claims being formally upheld is certainly not "Commission approval".

Here in America we've seen a lot of "fake news" since November of 2016, but Argentina takes the blue ribbon for "fake news: in 2016.  Read more at: UN CLCS COMMISSION



https://www.academia.edu/33898951/Argentinas_Continental_Shelf_Claims_-The_UN_CLCS_Commission