What If Defense Contractors Did What Gavin And Tom Do?

ScreenHunter_6350 Jan. 24 10.58

I write signal processing software, which is used by government spy agencies to track our enemies’ phone conversations. It is imperative that the signal be accurately and precisely portrayed.

That is the exact opposite of what Gavin and Tom do, which is to tamper with the signal and make it deceptive and misleading – in lockstep with the White House political agenda.


2014 : Fig.A.gif (656×446)

2002 : Fig.A.ps

It would be disastrous for national security if people like Gavin and Tom were employed in mission critical work, and unfortunately they are.


About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

26 Responses to What If Defense Contractors Did What Gavin And Tom Do?

  1. philjourdan says:

    I suspect that is exactly what is going to happen! As the majority of signals come from one religion, they will have to modify the output to be less discriminatory. can’t profile.

  2. gator69 says:

    With our Secretary of State making claims like that, I would say the alarmists actions are unquestionably disastrous to national security. Traitors one and all.

  3. SMS says:

    Could we send their ideas to China? Or let China steal them, thinking they’ve improved their scientific process? It sure would help out our defense budget knowing China had just built a billion dollar plane that turns right when you steer left.

  4. rah says:

    Well I hope the NSA is just using it to track “our enemies conversations” and not the political enemies of our politicians. Wouldn’t be surprised if the DEA doesn’t use it also.

  5. au1corsair says:

    The sordid truth is that “defense contractors” provide the goods and services required by the sponsor–which may not be the funded project at all.

    Examples from the past are numerous. The B-17 program of the late Thirties was billed as “coastal defense.” The Battle of Midway demonstrated what high-level bombers could accomplish against warships maneuvering at high speed. What broke the back of the Imperial Japanese offensive was a handful of dive bombers in a five minute period–with a lot of lucky circumstances such as the indecisiveness of Admiral Chuichi Nagumo and finding the damned carriers and the disjointed American attacks pulling the CAP to the wave tops, and the trick used by American code breakers that proved Midway was the target. Oh, the B-17’s and their Norden bomb sights missed everything but fish!

    The real deal behind the B-17 had a lot to do with trench warfare–and the ability to hit an enemy immediately. That wasn’t saleable to a pacifist America in the Thirties. Selling really long-range “coastal defense artillery” was–unlike the Eighties when the anti-ballistic missile shield was “provocation” to nuclear attack. The battleship was the strategic weapon of the Thirties. The airplane was only promises.

    Tying the ‘defense contractor’ to ‘climate scientists’ is the Department of Defense policy (issued in 2003) that declared Global Warming to be a National Defense priority. This one link is less than conclusive, but…. http://globalwarmingsolutions.org/tag/department-of-defense/

    • rah says:

      Though I don’t disagree with your ends justifies the means hypothesis at all. The development of the YB-17 as a coastal defense weapon made sense at the time for multiple reasons other than making it sell-able to the people/congress:
      1. At the time the Army Air Corp had great responsibilities for coastal defense of the US. They even had huge RR guns for coastal defense along with fixed installations. And they were fighting with the Navy for funding during the depression on many fronts and who would be responsible for the long range air coverage/patrolling aspect of coastal defense was just one of them.

      2. It remained to be demonstrated by actual war time experience that high altitude bombing of moving vessels was not an effective attack technique though every great once in awhile the did manage to get a hit. Though it seems kind of obvious it would not work very well to us now, we have had the benefit of hindsight.

      3. As it turned out the US was using B-17s extensively early in the war, long before it got into the strategic bombing campaign, for long range recon out of Australia because they were the best they had for that purpose until other types entered the USAAC and later USAAF inventory.

      4. Your comment on “trench warfare” Is right on. One only needs to see the number of times the heavies were used for tactical purposes during the war in Europe to understand that. I think any surviving member of the Panzer Lehr Division after what happened to them at Saint-Lô. http://www.battlevault.com/Events/Overlord-08/Histories/Scott_Dyer.pdf

      • au1corsair says:

        Yeah, rah, I over-simplified a complex situation. At the time War and Navy were different Cabinet offices and different, independent departments of the Executive Branch.

        As for the “war-time experience” don’t forget that peace-time testing was biased, and that hasn’t changed.

        Pre-war theorists didn’t expect strategic bombing with fighter aircraft or close air support with heavy bombers! Fast forward to the 21st Century–I have had numerous Air Force officers express astonishment that during the 21st Century fighters carried out strategic bombing and heavy strategic bombers were used for close air support.

        Climate science has these things in common with military science: ignoring the past, “models” taken as reality, political agendas…and I am still guilty of over-simplification.

        Strategic recon was not part of the original B-17 mission set, but turned out to be one of the most important missions. Other missions given to B-17’s that weren’t in the original specs included priority cargo and personnel.

        How familiar are you with Eddie Rickenbacker and his involuntary vacation in the South Pacific? http://militaryhistory.about.com/od/airforce/p/rickenbacker.htm
        Eddie Rickenbacker – World War II:
        With the outbreak of World War II, Rickenbacker volunteered his services to the government. At the request of Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson, Rickenbacker visited various Allied bases in Europe to assess their operations. Impressed by his findings, Stimson dispatched him to the Pacific on a similar tour as well as to deliver a secret message to General Douglas MacArthur. En route, his plane went down in the Pacific. Adrift for 24 days, Rickenbacker led the survivors in catching food and water until they were rescued.

        • rah says:

          Read his autobiography as a kid a couple of times and of course being a history buff ran across his name in other stuff I read such as when he was there and saved test pilot “Tex” Johnson a severe ass chewing from the president of Boeing for Barrel rolling the Dash-80 during it’s first public demonstration. Rickenbacker was with Boeing president Bill Allen when Tex was called before him. Before Allen could get started Eddie walked up to Tex and pulled his cowboy hat down over his ears put his arm around Tex’s shoulders and told Allen that he had just sold Boeing’s airliner to the world with that stunt. The Dash-80 became the Boeing 707 and most here probably know how successful that prototypical first US jet airliner was.

          Then there was the film about his and the other experiences on that raft. Rickenbacker’s autobiography is a wonderful read. http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1388265.Rickenbacker

        • rah says:

          One other comment. The B-17 and the other WW II heavies really marked the end of a breed and in fact a whole era in military aviation. Though the B-24 and B-29 had defensive armament from then on that kind of weaponry on a heavy bombers was gradually phased out until even the tail guns on the B-52 became a thing of the past. Now the only guns one finds on heavy bombers are the pistols the aircrew carry.

          And almost certainly never again will be seen anything like the great strategic bombing air campaigns of WW II when over 1,000 heavy bombers flying in great formations would be attacked by fighters in an aerial version of Calvary charges against bodies of troops.

        • rah says:

          “Pre-war theorists didn’t expect strategic bombing with fighter aircraft or close air support with heavy bombers! Fast forward to the 21st Century–I have had numerous Air Force officers express astonishment that during the 21st Century fighters carried out strategic bombing and heavy strategic bombers were used for close air support.”

          Arc light during Vietnam. Multiple times heavies used successfully for tactical bombing missions during Desert Storm. It always amazes me how misinformed the press and people can be about such things.

          During Desert Storm the press hyped “the pause”. Never mind the terrible sand storm and the fact that the Armored spearheads had moved faster than Patton during WWII and the logistical tails and rear area defense had to catch up. The Army and USMC spearheads had stopped moving forward so it was presented as a screw up. The reality was that during that pause B-1s, B-2s and various other aircraft high above were having targets designated by JSTARS using side looking radar. They could even detect an Iraqi soldier peddling a bicycle in that sand storm. And so the JSTARS find targets and the heavies dropped single GPS guided bombs on them right down through a storm with variable winds at different altitudes including surface winds up to 80 mph and the average error was less than 10 meters! The fact is that the Republican guard Divisions held by Saddam in static positions to defend Baghdad were decimated during that pause. To this day I have run into guys that were there on the ground right up front that still didn’t know what was done while they waited.

          The concept remains the same. When all else fails, tons on target gets the job done. It has been proven again and again during war that sometimes the best was is to hit a particularly tough flea with a sledgehammer.

  6. gofer says:

    If they are going to lay out a pile of money global warming, then the DOD, NASA, EPA and all others are going to justify why they need a big chunk of that pile. Hence the phony baloney nonsense spewed by Kerry and the rest of the hogs at the trough.

    In the Woody Allen movie Sleeper, he wakes up in the year 2073, in a police and the line of “what kind of govt is this? Its worse than California” was prophetic. Scientific findings had been reversed with “Here smoke this cigarette, its one of the healthiest substances known.” 🙂

  7. Neal S says:

    It is clear to me that Tony has higher standards than Gavin and Tom. I would hope that if defense contractors did what Gavin and Tom do, that the contractors would be held accountable. I’ve been disappointed on various things before however.

  8. Tel says:

    As an experiment, we should put together some advertising material for software that can extract plausible sounding incriminating whispered phrases out of random white noise recording. I think you would all be surprised how much interest there would be. Maybe put up a Kickstarter.

    Think about all those people playing music tracks backward and then claiming they found a secret message… with this software they could find their secret messages even easier.

    Think about that little whisper in the Gerorge Zimmerman recorded 911 conversation that apparently was enough proof of racism, even though to me it just sounded like the wind.

    I’m sure you would find all sorts of law enforcement and public relations applications for this.

  9. Dave N says:

    I expect they’d do exactly the same thing in defense; which would be to give the government the result they want.

  10. David Jay says:

    At this rate of early 20th century warming, my grandparents are going to freeze to death!

  11. David Jay says:


    some people can tell ‘um, some people can’t.

  12. ChrisW says:

    Not withstanding the emerging evidence of between .9 and 4.5 degrees bias being found in automated station data since approx 2000, was there a change in base years period between the ’02 and ’14 dates? I haven’t seen this question addressed or answered anywhere yet. A change in base period would have to be filtered out to a assertain the true amount of manipulation.
    It’s becoming very clear however that the change to automated stations (re SNOTEL analysis by Oyler) is a major contributing factor, and not just in the US!
    Regards, C

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s