Friday, August 01, 2014

KAL 007 and MH17: Civilian Airliners With Spies

I am always amazed at how the media tends to think the possible is the impossible when it comes to plane crashes.

Take for instance, the plane crash of the former president of Poland in Smolensk - pilot error was reasoned even when the evidence pointed to Russian ATC giving an incorrect glide-slope to the pilot which in turn led to the tragedy.

Whether it was a mistake or intentional - that could have only been deduced by reviewing the video of the scope screen of the radar at Smolensk. A video that was never provided to Poland investigators.

The one factor in the plane crash in Smolensk is you had Russians involved. The factors in KAL007 and MH17 are Russians were involved.

In KAL007, a Russian fighter shot down what was clearly a civilian airliner - and was it is mistake or done on purpose?

When you have all the elements of what took place with the shooting of KAL007 there is only one conclusion, Russia knew they shot down a civilian airliner.

The excuse given by Russia shooting KAL007: spies were on board. James Bond perhaps or did they consider a US Congressman who was killed in the shooting down of the plane to be a spy.

When looking at the shooting of KAL007, people point to the Cold War as a reason for the tension and their understanding that a civilian airliner could be shot down because spies were on board.

That is a fact.

Now take the Malaysia airliner, MH17 which according to sane information, the Russians used a BUK to shoot down MH17.

Was it a mistake or intentional?

During the downing of KAL007 there was a Cold War - during the downing of MH17 there is an actual war taking place.

The Russians said spies where on board KAL007 and according to intercepted communications between people at the MH17 crash scene and Moscow proxies, the question was asked if they found info on spies.

Now why would the issue of spies come up? The same was done when KAL007 was shot down.

There are theories that the BUK was used in a stand alone configuration and used as a reasonable excuse to accidently shoot down a civilain airliner.

The fact is there was the same paranoia displayed by the Russians when KAL007 was shot down and MH17.

Spies on board. And you certainly would take your time to ensure that target with spies would get hit.

That is the only reason for the shooting down of MH17.









Thursday, July 24, 2014

Flight MH17: The Malaysia Airplane Crash is a Message to NATO

Was the downing of the Malaysian plane crash an accident or was it a message from the Kremlin?

The answer can be found in the plane crash of Polish President Lech Aleksander KaczyƄski where Russians were shooting at Polish security and the press at the crash site - the Russians at the scene confiscated cameras from the press and looting took place.

Another fact was, according to Bill Gertz, NATO codes were confiscated by the Russians.

While the Smolensk plane crash was labeled an "accident", the evidence of the video of the radar that was controlling the approach of the president's plane was never given to investigators.

The video would have proven if the plane was on the glide slope when the Russian ATC said it was. If it wasn't on the glide slope when ATC said it was, then culpability would be placed on the Kremlin.

At Smolensk, a Kremlin liaison was in the tower and speaking to Moscow while the president's plane was landing - the phone call was supposedly never intercepted even with a president's plane landing.

The same pattern of Kremlin involvement with the downing of MH17 is similar to Smolensk - first there were the intercepted phone calls between Moscow and the rebels in the field.




Here the exchange between the rebels in the field and Kremlin liaison shows the coordination of communication after the plane was shot down.

There was the mindset of the Kremlin liaison that spies (military) were on board that aircraft. It was a military target.

Of course after the crash, warning shots were fired at people trying to get to the crash site, as was at the Smolensk crash site, then the looting and search for the black boxes took place with the rebels confiscating the black boxes.

The crash scene had been tainted as had been done at Smolensk.

As for the BUK SA-11 in stand alone use, it has a very limited range acquisition and would need prior intelligence that an aircraft was en route.

In stand alone use the BUK system has the ability to pick up the transponder of the MH17 letting the shooter know that it was a civilian airline.

This was no mistake made by the rebels and the Kremlin. Transponder codes would have to be entered to quickly target the aircraft.

Lastly, many of the victims came from the Netherlands, the country where NATO has its headquarters.

Like the Smolensk crash where the NATO codes were confiscated, this downing of the MH17 was Putin's message to NATO.

Update: Bloomberg posted an article that tries to build case of mistaken identity.The plane's transponder was broken or maybe turned off? Far-fetched.

Also there is a piece of the fuselage that has been found - also examining floor of fuselage in second photo there is shrapnel damage.




Update II: in a previous mentioned article published in Bloomberg online, a suggestion was made that MH17 transponder may have not be on or was not working - the Russian military was following the MH17 transponder on its radar.

Screen shot of Russian radar showing MH17 transponder on.  







Friday, July 11, 2014

Mark Begich Pulls a Political Ad Out of His Ass

Mark Begich is running for his political life and decided to pull a political ad out of his ass.

It seems the liar and BS artist wants the Alaska VA to be a model for the country.

Sure he does - But Veterans in Wasilla seem to have a problem with the Alaska VA.

Begich is pushing an audit that was done in Anchorage Alaska but it didn't include Fairbanks, Kenai, Juneau or Wasilla.

The guy is a fraud and the Alaska VA is not a model for the nation.




Sunday, June 08, 2014

John Mitchell FOIA: A Request for Correspondence of Senator Begich to the Secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs



Department of Veterans Affairs                                                                          June 7, 2014
Sean Burns
FOIA Contact
(20M33) VACO
810 Vermont Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20420
(202) 491-9439 (Telephone)
(202) 275-5947 (Fax)
foia.vbaco@va.gov


Re:  John Mitchell Case:  A Request for Correspondence of Senator Begich to the Secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs

Dear Staff:

I hereby request a copy of all correspondence to the Secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs dealing with Alaska veteran John Mitchell, including, but not limited to, all documents related to the conclusion made to John Mitchell via an email sent by Senator Begich on August 3rd, 2011.

See e-mail at http://thomasalamb.blogspot.com/2013/11/senator-mark-begich-tells-alaska-vet-to.html

Please note that this request for documents is being made pursuant to the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552, and the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. § 552a, as well as 38 C.F.R.§1.550 and 38 C.F.R.  § 1.577.  Your agency has a duty to respond to this  request within TWENTY (20) DAYS of the date of this request pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552 (a)(6)(A)(2)(i).

Additionally, although an extension of time to respond may be requested, it may only be granted for “unusual circumstances.” “Predictable agency workload” is not typically considered an unusual circumstance as stated in 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(C)(ii).   Moreover, even to the extent that unusual circumstances could be demonstrated in this instance, the time limit for the extension is limited to “10 working days” pursuant to 38 C.F.R.§ 1.553(d).

Please also be aware that your agency’s failure to respond to this request within twenty (20) days may result in the filing of an administrative appeal with the office of the Secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs pursuant to 38 C.F.R.§ 1.557 and 5 U.S.C. §552(a)(6)(A)(2)(ii), and potentially, the filing of a federal lawsuit to compel the production of the information.

This may subject your agency to contempt of court and a fine, including attorney fees and litigation expenses in compelling the production of this information pursuant to 38 U.S.C. § 552a(g)(l) of the Privacy Act, and 38 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(B) of FOIA.

I agree to pay reasonable costs involved in this FOIA request.

Thank you.

Very truly yours,

Thomas A. Lamb

Wednesday, May 07, 2014

The Alaska Supreme Court Bungles the Political Doctrine Question

I was waiting for the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals to uphold the California Secretary of State's decision to remove a presidential candidate from the ballot.

I notified the Court on the 9th circuit case to ensure that they had the necessary information to come up with a logical decision. They blew it big time.

Even though they issued a MOJ in my case against President Obama, the MOJ according to the Alaska Supreme Court Appellate rules can be cited to so that leaves the court in a legal predicament if another scenario comes up.

The 9th circuit case decision can be read here.

Bottom line, as the 9th circuit court points out, the state has the authority to make a decision on the eligibility of a candidate and can keep them off the ballot.

The MOJ in my case can be read here.

It is evident the Alaska Supreme Court bungled the political doctrine question. 





Wednesday, March 26, 2014

The Russians Are Coming to Alaska: Maybe

Remember all of the talk about a tunnel from Russia to Alaska - one Leftist blogger who lacks an intelligent design, thought Oh Boy that's a great idea for Alaska's economy.




Saturday, February 15, 2014

A Political Question: If Orly Taitz Was Secretary of State of California?

The Obots have been keeping score on the loses of the so-called birther cases in court. Many of the cases were dismissed for lack of subject jurisdiction.

The legal reason - the political question doctrine.

The Ninth Circuit has taken up the issue of whether the court has jurisdiction to settle a dispute if a candidate for the presidency is eligible.

The case is  Peta Lindsay, et al v. Debra Bowen.


You can listen to the oral argument here and the opening question from the Court is where their decision is heading and the lawyer for Lindsay sounds exactly like the Obots argument and he cited case law which is meaningless.

He admitted she was less than 35 years old.

The direction of the Court is heading the same direction as I argued in my case against the president.

Could you imagine if Orly Taitz was SOS of California and kept the birther Barack Obama off the California ballot using California election laws?

And since Congress is a Republican majority - the Obot's head would be spinning - screaming all along the court has to settle the dispute.