UK Issued Two Different Coordinates for Gulf Incident
Friend | 04.04.2007 08:21 | Analysis | Anti-militarism | Terror War
The UK Ministry of Defence website still contains their widely quoted press release [1] , issued on the 28th March, which attempts to clearly establish that the arrest of the fifteen British sailors and marines by Iran took place in Iraqi waters. Unfortunately for the MOD, it appears that they have used two different sets of position coordinates to fix the site of the incident.
The UK Ministry of Defence website still contains their widely quoted press release [1] , issued on the 28th March, which attempts to clearly establish that the arrest of the fifteen British sailors and marines by Iran took place in Iraqi waters.
Unfortunately for the MOD, it appears that they have used two different sets of position coordinates to fix the site of the incident. One of these coordinates is quoted in the text [1] (para 4), another is pictured in their photograph [2] taken from a helicoptor. Furthermore, the data was presented in the same press briefing. Assuming that both sets of data were expressed using the same coordinate system this is, at the least, an embarrassing over sight.
"As shown on the chart, the merchant vessel was 7.5 nautical miles south east of the Al Faw Peninsula and clearly in Iraqi territorial waters. Her master has confirmed that his vessel was anchored within Iraqi waters at the time of the arrest. The position was 29 degrees 50.36 minutes North 048 degrees 43.08 minutes East. This places her 1.7 nautical miles inside Iraqi territorial waters. This fact has been confirmed by the Iraqi Foreign Ministry."
We have submitted the following Freedom of Information request to the MOD to try and clarify what was going on:
I am writing regarding the press release "MOD briefing shows Royal Navy personnel were in Iraqi waters" March 28th 2007, published online at http://www.mod.uk/...
It can be observed that the coordinates on the Garmin GPS handset photo on the MOD site are different from the coordinates quoted in the text of the same press release (N 29 50.174 vs. N 2950.36 and E 48 43.544 vs. E 48 43.08).
It therefore appears, that according to the GPS data, the ship was actually 0.5 nautical miles further east (towards Iran) than stated and 0.2 nautical miles further south.
My questions for the FOI request are:
(1) which of the 2 coordinate data published by the MOD should be taken as indicating the position of the incident?
(2) are both sets of coordinate data expressed in the same geographic coordinate system and what is the system used?
With thanks
References:
[1] http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/DefenceNews/MilitaryOperations/ModBriefingShowsRoyalNavyPersonnelWereInIraqiWaters.htm
[2] http://www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/DB42AC92-E1CC-4478-9910-B8CB299A6612/0/HeloGPS.jpg
Related:
http://mparent7777-2.blogspot.com/2007/04/iran-german-armed-forces-university.html
German Armed Forces University: British Boundary Map "Fictitious"
the two pictures below show GPS location of the incident, as seen from a Royal Navy helicopter over the merchant vessel after the event [Picture: MOD]
Unfortunately for the MOD, it appears that they have used two different sets of position coordinates to fix the site of the incident. One of these coordinates is quoted in the text [1] (para 4), another is pictured in their photograph [2] taken from a helicoptor. Furthermore, the data was presented in the same press briefing. Assuming that both sets of data were expressed using the same coordinate system this is, at the least, an embarrassing over sight.
"As shown on the chart, the merchant vessel was 7.5 nautical miles south east of the Al Faw Peninsula and clearly in Iraqi territorial waters. Her master has confirmed that his vessel was anchored within Iraqi waters at the time of the arrest. The position was 29 degrees 50.36 minutes North 048 degrees 43.08 minutes East. This places her 1.7 nautical miles inside Iraqi territorial waters. This fact has been confirmed by the Iraqi Foreign Ministry."
We have submitted the following Freedom of Information request to the MOD to try and clarify what was going on:
I am writing regarding the press release "MOD briefing shows Royal Navy personnel were in Iraqi waters" March 28th 2007, published online at http://www.mod.uk/...
It can be observed that the coordinates on the Garmin GPS handset photo on the MOD site are different from the coordinates quoted in the text of the same press release (N 29 50.174 vs. N 2950.36 and E 48 43.544 vs. E 48 43.08).
It therefore appears, that according to the GPS data, the ship was actually 0.5 nautical miles further east (towards Iran) than stated and 0.2 nautical miles further south.
My questions for the FOI request are:
(1) which of the 2 coordinate data published by the MOD should be taken as indicating the position of the incident?
(2) are both sets of coordinate data expressed in the same geographic coordinate system and what is the system used?
With thanks
References:
[1] http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/DefenceNews/MilitaryOperations/ModBriefingShowsRoyalNavyPersonnelWereInIraqiWaters.htm
[2] http://www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/DB42AC92-E1CC-4478-9910-B8CB299A6612/0/HeloGPS.jpg
Related:
http://mparent7777-2.blogspot.com/2007/04/iran-german-armed-forces-university.html
German Armed Forces University: British Boundary Map "Fictitious"
the two pictures below show GPS location of the incident, as seen from a Royal Navy helicopter over the merchant vessel after the event [Picture: MOD]
Friend
Homepage:
http://www.wakeupfromyourslumber.com/node/1114
Comments
Hide the following 6 comments
Simple explanation
04.04.2007 13:44
It's a good bit of detection work - but there seems a very simple and obvious explanation.
From the picture it is clear that the helicopter is not directly over the centre of the ship, although it is hovering close to it, so it would not be suprising to be a fraction of a mile out.
I'd presume that the ship coordinates are those from the actually ship itself and have simply been confirmed by the helicopter which flew around it.
Either way, they do seem to suggest it was within Iraqi waters....
Norville B
Norville B is an Imperial Troll
04.04.2007 14:44
A Bogus “Hostage Crisis”
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2007/04/367015.html
Just where were those 15 brits?
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2007/04/366971.html
Blair's Faked Border
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2007/04/366759.html
BBC News 24: Craig Murray on British marines captured by Iran
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2007/03/366478.html
Craig Murray on the British Marines Captured by Iran
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2007/03/366430.html
Please go back to reading the Daily Mail and do your pimping for the Empire elsewhere.
silver platter
implications
04.04.2007 18:24
Cryptic ? That's what happens when the waters are muddied.
The original MoD webpage for the press release was quickly changed from stating 'international waters' to 'Iraqi waters', and no acknowledgement of the change or the importance of the change was made.
danny
And notNorvilleB either!?
04.04.2007 18:57
Garmin Etrex is the cheapest entry level GPS device on the market. Even a sextant would be more expensive.
http://search.ebay.co.uk/search/search.dll?from=R40&satitle=garmin+etrex
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/VERY-OLD-SEXTANT-BRANDIS-SON-at-the-BEGINNIN_W0QQitemZ250098597869QQcategoryZ66638QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem
Is it any wonder no-one's sure where they were!
I'll assume that in the great British Military tradition they were issued with something even worse that had a display in pidgin English and crashed every three minutes, so they bought the Garmin off E-bay using their own wages.
They probably got the helicopter off E-bay too.
Perhaps the Iranians simply felt embarrassed and sorry for them and it was a humanitarian act taking them prisoner.
Not Donald Rumsfeld
?
04.04.2007 20:32
Yeah, right. You've just admitted posting under the identitiy 'A Sailor' in support of an unchallenged 'Not Donald Rumsfeld' post.
Posting under multiple names in support of your own posts, to create a fasle consensus or confusion, is a bit of a signature for you, and it isn't the first time you've admitted it. I can provide the links if you won't admit it Richard.
Claiming to be military isn't new for you, and hinting at 'insider knowledge' is another signature, but it is the first time you claimed to be a sailor. You have been trying to pass yourself off as a peace protestor for the past year now though, have Trident Ploughshares bought that ?
And you just admitted being the poster popularly know as Spook. I've still kept the email where you said 'I'm not a spook, just a spazzy hahaha'. As proud and unbelievable a boast as all your other posts.
You are a spook and you are rumbled.
danny
not necessarily spooks
05.04.2007 10:46
apparently the site is quite popular and inspirational for them
realist