>From - Sat Mar 02 00:57:25 2024
X-Received: by 10.50.119.65 with SMTP id ks1mr6149204igb.4.1373745510887;
Sat, 13 Jul 2013 12:58:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-BeenThere: tscm-l2006_at_googlegroups.com
Received: by 10.50.39.19 with SMTP id l19ls1016160igk.33.canary; Sat, 13 Jul
2013 12:58:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 10.43.60.82 with SMTP id wr18mr33021248icb.21.1373745505318;
Sat, 13 Jul 2013 12:58:25 -0700 (PDT)
Return-Path: <jm..._at_tscm.com>
Received: from smtpauth03.mfg.siteprotect.com (smtpauth03h.mfg.siteprotect.com. [64.26.60.134])
by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTP id n13si846687igk.1.2013.07.13.12.58.25
for <tscm-..._at_googlegroups.com>;
Sat, 13 Jul 2013 12:58:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received-SPF: neutral (google.com: 64.26.60.134 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of jm..._at_tscm.com) client-ip=64.26.60.134;
Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com;
spf=neutral (google.com: 64.26.60.134 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of jm..._at_tscm.com) smtp.mail=jm..._at_tscm.com
Received: from Waiting-For-A-Blue-Bird.local (unknown [71.174.30.147])
(Authenticated sender: jm..._at_tscm.com)
by smtpauth03.mfg.siteprotect.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 0787FC756
for <tscm-..._at_googlegroups.com>; Sat, 13 Jul 2013 14:58:23 -0500 (CDT)
Message-ID: <51E1B15E.5020506_at_tscm.com>
Date: Sat, 13 Jul 2013 15:58:22 -0400
From: "James M. Atkinson" <jm..._at_tscm.com>
Reply-To: jm..._at_tscm.com
Organization: Granite Island Group
User-Agent: Thunderbird 3.0a1pre (Macintosh/2008022015)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: tscm-l2006_at_googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [TSCM-L] {6483} Aeroflot Flight 150
References: <883c.25c1e259.3f109f43_at_aol.com> <1307120451480.11504_at_somehost.domainz.com> <20130712031856.GD22727_at_pig.dieconsulting.com> <51E05906.6060503_at_tscm.com> <CADCX+3XgKYNGNPmHZokDgZeR0RayuocUWOYGoPUhLeoLYRdWXg_at_mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CADCX+3XgKYNGNPmHZokDgZeR0RayuocUWOYGoPUhLeoLYRdWXg_at_mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="------------020805000900030905060903"
X-CTCH-Spam: Unknown
X-CTCH-RefID: str=0001.0A020209.51E1B160.00B1,ss=1,re=0.000,fgs=0
--------------020805000900030905060903
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
When I look at the Snowden affair, there is a major flaw in the way that
he handled this travel arrangements.
The flight from Hawaii to Hong Kong was not a bad option as he could
become invisible in that city provided he possessed good trade craft,
but one he gave the first interview to the Guardian he needed to leave
right away, and with no delays. The flight to Russia as a good option,
but he needed to be at his final destination before the Guardian ran
anything, and actually before the Guardian broadcast anything back to
England, or any draft copies of the report were filed.
If he was really, really sharp, he would have flown from Hawaii to
Washington, DC, held the Guardian interviews in DC (using good
tradecraft), then seconds after the interview, before the Guardian
uploaded or transmitted even the first word of the article for Snowden
to be on a flight to Canada, with a connecting flight to Cuba or South
America. But, Snowden would have needed to initiated his asylum
request(s) well in advance of his Guardian interviews, and certainly
well before his bugging out after the Guardian interviews.
If as actually quite foolish for him to provide interviews where he
identified himself while he as still "in transit".
It would have been a much better option for him to leak a little while
he was still in Hawaii, but to give no interviews. Then in Hong Kong to
leak a few more documents, but to give no interviews, then to fly into
France, leak more documents, request asylum and then leave right away,
use the Chunnel to get to England, leak more, request asylum from a
second group of South American countries, then fly to Canada leak more,
and then fly to Cuba and actually stay in Cuba for a while, and while in
Cuba give his very first on camera interviews. Or even have the
Guardian sit on the interviews until he as at his foreign destinations,
It would have been even wiser for his to actually be on vacation in
Venezuela , and to do all of the interviews with the Guardian in that
country.
All the Hub-Bub with him being in Hong Kong, and then staying in Hong
Kong a bit too long suggests that his tradecraft is remarkably poor.
He could have easily just sent the documents by E-Mail, from the airport
in Hawaii, or even from his place of work, and there would be virtually
no ay to trace any of it to him. Indeed, because Hawaii is such a
massive tourist destination, the Guardian could have flown in to Hawaii,
done several days of interviews at one of the hotels at Waikiki Beach
and then sat on the interviews and leaks and not link any of it to
Snowden. These documents speak for themselves, Snowden did not need to
appear on camera for any of it (at least not initially). In fact, Mr.
Snowden could have given the Guardian a video interview and a few
thousand documents and the Guardian could have leaked out a few
documents per week, and then after a few months posted the video
interview, but the video interview was just utterly foolish for Snowden
to do.
The very slow "dripping" of classified documents in this case is
dramatically more intense politically then hundreds of documents. The
"slow leak" of two or three documents per week from an unknown source
would have the politicians in a tailspin, and there would be political
pandaemonium as the political confects intricate lies to save their own
asses. The document that lists all of the politicians who were
intricately involved would need to be the first documents, along with
maybe 10-12 other documents that support the first document. Then a
week later, more document that broaden the scope of the topic and which
implicates additional political creatures, all dovetailing into the
first group of documents. But, there was zero reason for Snowden to
reveal himself to the Guardian, and certainly no reason for him to have
a video interview (at least not for a while).
He also would have done better to fly to Los Angles, and do the
interviews there and to handle the initial contact THERE, and not in
bloody Hong Kong.
He also need to have a rock solid escape plan in place well before even
the first leak, but he does not appear to have considered this very
well. In order to gain Asylum, he actually needed to be on foreign soil,
and then seek asylum once he as in that country. But, he is going to
need something of great value to trade with the country that grants him
asylum, like millions of classified documents.
At present Snowden is caught in a limbo, and is subject to a kidnapping
by either U.S. operatives of the allies of the U.S. and Moscow is one of
the worse places that he could be trying to escape from. He may or may
not make it to a friendly country ho can grant him asylum, only time
will tell, but the odds of a successful transit are stacked against him.
Justin Ferguson wrote:
>
> Doesnt this all hinge on greenland not cooperating with the US, which
> given it still yields some amount of defense to the US seems misguided
> at best? (id est thule AFB is a 'defense area' still which leaves
> parts of Greenland's defense at the whims of the US military)
>
> I mean everyone is speculating this is possible based off of a flight
> path some guy said would be possible because it avoided (some)
> european and us airspace with a focus on NATO, disregarding Denmarks
> lingering role in Greenland and the twits hit the fan when a flight
> diverted flight paths? Despite the same flight having taken the same
> flight path at the same flight took in april long before anyone ever
> heard of snowden..
>
> Then of course we are supposing that Russia is colluding with one or
> more south american countries to export a troublesome spy who has
> nothing of any real value to give them, and puts the guy on a
> commercial flight? I mean members of Duma and the bar association care
> so little about the guy that they responded to his invitation to his
> press conference with a "sorry, busy". Then of course, we are ignoring
> that slight Greenland wrinkle and the laughable Canadian wrinkle.
>
> feels like a lot of willful fantasy.
>
> On Jul 12, 2013 3:33 PM, "James M. Atkinson" <jm..._at_tscm.com
> <mailto:jm..._at_tscm.com>> wrote:
>
> The first thing to observe is that this flight went to tremendous
> effort to avoid U.S. territory, or airspace over territorial
> waters. Even if it was weather related at th ehighr altitudes of
> 35,000 to 40,000 feet, the air current were not an issue over
> Greenland, and Canada, all of which were carefully avoided on the
> flight.
>
> Snowden may or may not have been on the flight (note the "live
> conference with him in Moscow this morning" that suggests that
> this could have been a "ferret flight" to test the U.S. response).
>
> The flight path take by this flight burned more fuel, and the
> "winds" do not appear to be at the altitudes this plane as flying at.
>
> The flights merely 2 days prior took the normal path, and it seems
> the common path on prior flights is to hug the Coast of Canada and
> the United States for a goodly mount of the flight time, then to
> sing out over the Bahamas and descend into Havana by way of "The
> Gauntlet" of anti-aircraft artillery and surface to air missiles
> they have on the North Coast.
>
> -jma
>
>
>
> David I. Emery wrote:
>> yOn Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 04:54:08AM +0200, Thomas Shaddack wrote:
>>
>>> The flight track is here:
>>> http://flightaware.com/live/flight/AFL150
>>>
>>> The path deviations don't look too significant to me. Could be a common
>>> trajectory adjustment due to less than ideal local weather conditions.
>>>
>> Try comparing that flight with all the others on the same route
>> listed on Flight Aware... Jim does have a point here...
>>
>>
>>
>
> --
> James M. Atkinson. President and Sr. Engineer
> "Leonardo da Vinci of Bug Sweeps and Spy Hunting"
> http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=15178662
>
> Granite Island Group http://www.tscm.com/
> (978) 546-3803 <tel:%28978%29%20546-3803> jm..._at_tscm.com <mailto:jm..._at_tscm.com>
> (978) 381-9111 <tel:%28978%29%20381-9111>
>
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "TSCM-L Professionals List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
> send an email to tscm-..._at_googlegroups.com
> <mailto:tscm-l2006%2..._at_googlegroups.com>.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "TSCM-L Professionals List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
> an email to tscm-..._at_googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>
>
--
James M. Atkinson. President and Sr. Engineer
"Leonardo da Vinci of Bug Sweeps and Spy Hunting"
http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=15178662
Granite Island Group
http://www.tscm.com/
(978) 546-3803 jm..._at_tscm.com
(978) 381-9111
--------------020805000900030905060903
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
When I look at the Snowden affair, there is a major flaw in the way
that he handled this travel arrangements.<br>
<br>
The flight from Hawaii to Hong Kong was not a bad option as he could
become invisible in that city provided he possessed good trade craft,
but one he gave the first interview to the Guardian he needed to leave
right away, and with no delays. The flight to Russia as a good option,
but he needed to be at his final destination before the Guardian ran
anything, and actually before the Guardian broadcast anything back to
England, or any draft copies of the report were filed.<br>
<br>
If he was really, really sharp, he would have flown from Hawaii to
Washington, DC, held the Guardian interviews in DC (using good
tradecraft), then seconds after the interview, before the Guardian
uploaded or transmitted even the first word of the article for Snowden
to be on a flight to Canada, with a connecting flight to Cuba or South
America. But, Snowden would have needed to initiated his asylum
request(s) well in advance of his Guardian interviews, and certainly
well before his bugging out after the Guardian interviews.<br>
<br>
If as actually quite foolish for him to provide interviews where he
identified himself while he as still "in transit". <br>
<br>
It would have been a much better option for him to leak a little while
he was still in Hawaii, but to give no interviews. Then in Hong Kong
to leak a few more documents, but to give no interviews, then to fly
into France, leak more documents, request asylum and then leave right
away, use the Chunnel to get to England, leak more, request asylum from
a second group of South American countries, then fly to Canada leak
more, and then fly to Cuba and actually stay in Cuba for a while, and
while in Cuba give his very first on camera interviews. Or even have
the Guardian sit on the interviews until he as at his foreign
destinations,<br>
<br>
It would have been even wiser for his to actually be on vacation in
Venezuela , and to do all of the interviews with the Guardian in that
country.<br>
<br>
All the Hub-Bub with him being in Hong Kong, and then staying in Hong
Kong a bit too long suggests that his tradecraft is remarkably poor.<br>
<br>
He could have easily just sent the documents by E-Mail, from the
airport in Hawaii, or even from his place of work, and there would be
virtually no ay to trace any of it to him. Indeed, because Hawaii is
such a massive tourist destination, the Guardian could have flown in to
Hawaii, done several days of interviews at one of the hotels at Waikiki
Beach and then sat on the interviews and leaks and not link any of it
to Snowden. These documents speak for themselves, Snowden did not need
to appear on camera for any of it (at least not initially). In fact,
Mr. Snowden could have given the Guardian a video interview and a few
thousand documents and the Guardian could have leaked out a few
documents per week, and then after a few months posted the video
interview, but the video interview was just utterly foolish for Snowden
to do. <br>
<br>
The very slow "dripping" of classified documents in this case is
dramatically more intense politically then hundreds of documents. The
"slow leak" of two or three documents per week from an unknown source
would have the politicians in a tailspin, and there would be political
pandaemonium as the political confects intricate lies to save their
own asses. The document that lists all of the politicians who were
intricately involved would need to be the first documents, along with
maybe 10-12 other documents that support the first document. Then a
week later, more document that broaden the scope of the topic and
which implicates additional political creatures, all dovetailing into
the first group of documents. But, there was zero reason for Snowden to
reveal himself to the Guardian, and certainly no reason for him to have
a video interview (at least not for a while). <br>
<br>
He also would have done better to fly to Los Angles, and do the
interviews there and to handle the initial contact THERE, and not in
bloody Hong Kong.<br>
<br>
He also need to have a rock solid escape plan in place well before even
the first leak, but he does not appear to have considered this very
well. In order to gain Asylum, he actually needed to be on foreign
soil, and then seek asylum once he as in that country. But, he is going
to need something of great value to trade with the country that grants
him asylum, like millions of classified documents.<br>
<br>
At present Snowden is caught in a limbo, and is subject to a kidnapping
by either U.S. operatives of the allies of the U.S. and Moscow is one
of the worse places that he could be trying to escape from. He may or
may not make it to a friendly country ho can grant him asylum, only
time will tell, but the odds of a successful transit are stacked
against him. <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Justin Ferguson wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:..._at_mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<p>Doesnt this all hinge on greenland not cooperating with the US,
which given it still yields some amount of defense to the US seems
misguided at best? (id est thule AFB is a 'defense area' still which
leaves parts of Greenland's defense at the whims of the US military)</p>
<p>I mean everyone is speculating this is possible based off of a
flight path some guy said would be possible because it avoided (some)
european and us airspace with a focus on NATO, disregarding Denmarks
lingering role in Greenland and the twits hit the fan when a flight
diverted flight paths? Despite the same flight having taken the same
flight path at the same flight took in april long before anyone ever
heard of snowden..</p>
<p>Then of course we are supposing that Russia is colluding with one
or more south american countries to export a troublesome spy who has
nothing of any real value to give them, and puts the guy on a
commercial flight? I mean members of Duma and the bar association care
so little about the guy that they responded to his invitation to his
press conference with a "sorry, busy". Then of course, we are ignoring
that slight Greenland wrinkle and the laughable Canadian wrinkle.</p>
<p> feels like a lot of willful fantasy.</p>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Jul 12, 2013 3:33 PM, "James M. Atkinson"
<<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:jm..._at_tscm.com">jm..._at_tscm.com</a>>
wrote:<br type="attribution">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote"
style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
The first thing to observe is that this flight went to tremendous
effort to avoid U.S. territory, or airspace over territorial waters.
Even if it was weather related at th ehighr altitudes of 35,000 to
40,000 feet, the air current were not an issue over Greenland, and
Canada, all of which were carefully avoided on the flight. <br>
<br>
Snowden may or may not have been on the flight (note the "live
conference with him in Moscow this morning" that suggests that this
could have been a "ferret flight" to test the U.S. response).<br>
<br>
The flight path take by this flight burned more fuel, and the "winds"
do not appear to be at the altitudes this plane as flying at.<br>
<br>
The flights merely 2 days prior took the normal path, and it seems the
common path on prior flights is to hug the Coast of Canada and the
United States for a goodly mount of the flight time, then to sing out
over the Bahamas and descend into Havana by way of "The Gauntlet" of
anti-aircraft artillery and surface to air missiles they have on the
North Coast.<br>
<br>
-jma<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
David I. Emery wrote:
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre>yOn Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 04:54:08AM +0200, Thomas Shaddack wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre>The flight track is here:
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="
http://flightaware.com/live/flight/AFL150" target="_blank">
http://flightaware.com/live/flight/AFL150</a>
The path deviations don't look too significant to me. Could be a common
trajectory adjustment due to less than ideal local weather conditions.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre> Try comparing that flight with all the others on the same route
listed on Flight Aware... Jim does have a point here...
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<pre cols="80">--
James M. Atkinson. President and Sr. Engineer
"Leonardo da Vinci of Bug Sweeps and Spy Hunting"
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="
http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=15178662" target="_blank">
http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=15178662</a>
Granite Island Group <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="
http://www.tscm.com/" target="_blank">
http://www.tscm.com/</a>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="tel:%28978%29%20546-3803"
value="+19785463803" target="_blank">(978) 546-3803</a> <a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:jm..._at_tscm.com" target="_blank">jm..._at_tscm.com</a>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="tel:%28978%29%20381-9111"
value="+19783819111" target="_blank">(978) 381-9111</a>
</pre>
</div>
-- <br>
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "TSCM-L Professionals List" group.<br>
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
an email to <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:tscm-l2006%2..._at_googlegroups.com" target="_blank">tscm-..._at_googlegroups.com</a>.<br>
For more options, visit <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="
https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out" target="_blank">
https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out</a>.<br>
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
</div>
-- <br>
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "TSCM-L Professionals List" group.<br>
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
an email to <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:tscm-..._at_googlegroups.com">tscm-..._at_googlegroups.com</a>.<br>
For more options, visit <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="
https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out">
https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out</a>.<br>
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="80">--
James M. Atkinson. President and Sr. Engineer
"Leonardo da Vinci of Bug Sweeps and Spy Hunting"
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="
http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=15178662">
http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=15178662</a>
Granite Island Group <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="
http://www.tscm.com/">
http://www.tscm.com/</a>
(978) 546-3803 <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:jm..._at_tscm.com">jm..._at_tscm.com</a>
(978) 381-9111
</pre>
</body>
</html>
--------------020805000900030905060903--
Received on Sat Mar 02 2024 - 00:57:25 CST