Thanks for your piece. MonkeyWerx is not what he makes himself out to be. He invents these theories for world events and then uses actual flight data to back up his claims. It's willful so it's disinformation in my book. All he cares about are YouTube ad and product sales revenues.
This is very useful clarification of actual timelines. The MonkeyWerx presentation was a Christmas present of simplicity, but was unfortunately too-simple to be factual...
The P8 seems more likely to be assessing damage. It could have been back-up, in case there was not enough damage done.
With all the time that NATU unmanned mini-subs were around the pipelines from June through September, it would be easy to position radio target-beacons to guide an incoming torpedo, from a P8 or naval vessel. It would also be possible to have placed large shaped-charges on the pipes.
Something like this is always a trial of military offensive capabilities, and NATO had lots of time to get things right.
Conflating a P-8 and a big Sikorsky chopper , and replacing Iceland with the US as the origin and return destination of the P-8 are rather gross misrepresentations of data. Gross misrepresentations of data open the whole article to ready discreditation in the setting of a limited-hang-out denial of full culpability. One might presume that NATO, doing such a deed, would establish several levels of defensive denial ahead of time.
There is no plausible culprit outside of NATO at this point, though who gave the order remains murky, and who is expecting to benefit in the ongoing progression of this war is uncertain.
Who are the dupes at the NATO table?
Russia is holding cards close to chest and preserving open-options, I think.
Thank you for your comment. It's true that the P8 was already in the air and flying towards the area when the first blast went off: the Reuters article confirms this aspect. It might be the case that sensors on site detected something occurring in the area, and the P8 was sent out to investigate. Or, in another sense, to confirm the something occurring was successful or not.
I have learned to trust my intuitive sense when it starts sending up "this is inconsistent" signals, and that's what prompted me to start looking into what Monkey was claiming. I didn't point out that it's convenient how corroborating evidence was not available: such as his own data point that BART12 doesn't show that particular flight on its logs. I have not since looked around to see if that part is true still.
As for other possible culprits, I've already made my purely speculative conjecture that Sweden is probably more involved than most, especially considering their status regarding NATO is accelerating towards membership.
At any rate, I don't want to conclude that Monkeywerx is limited hangout, but a cursory search I did brought up a military information researcher on Twitter outright saying Monkey is a grifter/fraud and passing along disinformation. So, I'm not alone in suspecting that the information provided is meant to mislead. When I read the comments by his supporters and fans, I recognize the same kind of learned helplessness I observe all across the political and social groups. Still, I am learning things from watching the SITREPs, such as where to find this information and terminology, but I know also that my intuition serves me well in discerning how open to be.
You pointed out a lot of clear timeline inconsistencies. That's very useful for people who seek to find out what is going on, instead of the comforting consistency of an echo-chamber.
Thanks, you're not the first to question things. I have been questioning. I worked in the field ages ago.
Thanks for your piece. MonkeyWerx is not what he makes himself out to be. He invents these theories for world events and then uses actual flight data to back up his claims. It's willful so it's disinformation in my book. All he cares about are YouTube ad and product sales revenues.
Thanks Polemos.
This is very useful clarification of actual timelines. The MonkeyWerx presentation was a Christmas present of simplicity, but was unfortunately too-simple to be factual...
The P8 seems more likely to be assessing damage. It could have been back-up, in case there was not enough damage done.
With all the time that NATU unmanned mini-subs were around the pipelines from June through September, it would be easy to position radio target-beacons to guide an incoming torpedo, from a P8 or naval vessel. It would also be possible to have placed large shaped-charges on the pipes.
Something like this is always a trial of military offensive capabilities, and NATO had lots of time to get things right.
Conflating a P-8 and a big Sikorsky chopper , and replacing Iceland with the US as the origin and return destination of the P-8 are rather gross misrepresentations of data. Gross misrepresentations of data open the whole article to ready discreditation in the setting of a limited-hang-out denial of full culpability. One might presume that NATO, doing such a deed, would establish several levels of defensive denial ahead of time.
There is no plausible culprit outside of NATO at this point, though who gave the order remains murky, and who is expecting to benefit in the ongoing progression of this war is uncertain.
Who are the dupes at the NATO table?
Russia is holding cards close to chest and preserving open-options, I think.
Thank you for your comment. It's true that the P8 was already in the air and flying towards the area when the first blast went off: the Reuters article confirms this aspect. It might be the case that sensors on site detected something occurring in the area, and the P8 was sent out to investigate. Or, in another sense, to confirm the something occurring was successful or not.
I have learned to trust my intuitive sense when it starts sending up "this is inconsistent" signals, and that's what prompted me to start looking into what Monkey was claiming. I didn't point out that it's convenient how corroborating evidence was not available: such as his own data point that BART12 doesn't show that particular flight on its logs. I have not since looked around to see if that part is true still.
As for other possible culprits, I've already made my purely speculative conjecture that Sweden is probably more involved than most, especially considering their status regarding NATO is accelerating towards membership.
At any rate, I don't want to conclude that Monkeywerx is limited hangout, but a cursory search I did brought up a military information researcher on Twitter outright saying Monkey is a grifter/fraud and passing along disinformation. So, I'm not alone in suspecting that the information provided is meant to mislead. When I read the comments by his supporters and fans, I recognize the same kind of learned helplessness I observe all across the political and social groups. Still, I am learning things from watching the SITREPs, such as where to find this information and terminology, but I know also that my intuition serves me well in discerning how open to be.
You pointed out a lot of clear timeline inconsistencies. That's very useful for people who seek to find out what is going on, instead of the comforting consistency of an echo-chamber.
Get a hobby, jealousy is an ugly thing. Your followers can swallow your crap.
Update your programming and heuristics.