GPSr sighted in Iraq

[freeside]

The M1s and Bradleys may have onboard military-grade GPS, but the guys on the ground seem to have brought their own handheld units.

 

Marine using Garmin GPS12

 

 

(image by James Hill for the New York Times)

 

[This message was edited by freeside on April 06, 2003 at 10:37 PM.]

[GlfWrVt]

I sure wish I had my Meri Plat over there...

 

That would have been nice....

[+DustyJacket]

Last night I saw some video of SOC guys using a meridian.

 

DustyJacket

Not all those that wander are lost. But in my case...

[gm100guy]

I can't remeber where I saw it but there was a reporter on the news holding 1 when he was doing his report from Iraq.

 

gm100guy

http://members.rogers.com/gm100guy/cachepage.htm

Ontario geocachers http://groups.msn.com/GeocachinginOntario/homepage

[+TEAM 360]

They are on the toughest Level 5 Geocache: The Roving Saddam. Just like the Osama Cache, the coordinates keep changing all the time.

 

Looks like the Marine in the photo could have used one of those plastic screen protectors.

[+1pilot]

Nice Photoshop job

 

**********************************************************

Where are we going?......And WHY am I in this handbasket???

[Duaut]

Yaeh, I saw the Meridian last night also. I watched a news report about 3 weeks ago and the Marine interviewed showed his yellow E-Trax that he used with a laser sighter to target the enemy with. He said the issued gear was to large to work with and the smaller units were cheap enough for him to purchase themselves and pocket. The issued ones were the size of the old combat phones.

[Cache Canucks]

quote:

---

Originally posted by 1pilot:

"...Nice Photoshop job..."

---

That was the first thing that struck me about this picture(?) as well. It has much the same look as the bogus cache-log images that were exposed last summer.

[Alphawolf]

I can assure you from first-hand experience, that our troops do indeed use commercial GPSR's. Our fighter pilots carry Garmin GPSR's as part of their survival gear. These have been "pre-loaded" with waypoints to aid in escape and evasion/extraction in case of ejection over un-friendly territory. Many, many ground troops also use comercial GPSR's for the reason mentioned before....they are cheaper and lighter.

 

"Never take a sunset for granted. Stop what you are doing and enjoy it. You never know when it may be your last"

[Cache Canucks]

Insert correctly posed hand holding GPSr here:

 

 

[Edit: Y'gotta love AdobePhoto!]

 

[This message was edited by Cache Canucks on April 06, 2003 at 11:36 AM.]

[+SteveOr]

I would have killed for an e-Trex twelve years ago. We had some goofy (and short lived) system called PLARS. It was a cumbersome field radio you wore on your back and had a handset that read out the grid coordinates. It was pretty accurate but relied on radio contact and triangulation between all the units (i.e. each company, battalion, regiment etc.). I wanted to borrow the battalion's one GPS unit to set up a land navigation course but our geeky Operations Officer wouldn't let me. Remembering his monotone mantra, "USE PLARS! USE PLARS!" grates me to this day.

[dave and jaime]

not to shout ps, but in the pic isnt the sun in the top left of the photo according to the shadow from the humvee/trailers but the shadow on the soldiers hand makes the sun look like it is in the lower right corner....

 

makes you wonder if the photo was made for the press or something assuming it came from a reliable souce.

[Cache Canucks]

quote:

---

Originally posted by dave and jaime:

"...in the pic isnt the sun in the top left of the photo according to the shadow from the humvee/trailers but the shadow on the soldiers hand makes the sun look like it is in the lower right corner..."

---

Nah... that's not it. Look at the way the shadows fall from the edges of the GPSr's controls (the light is coming from the same 'upper left' direction).

[irvingdog]

I have sold over a dozen GPSr's to family of U.S. military who have then sent them on to their spouse/children. I learned all about MGRS or Military Grid Refrence System, and that most good retail available GPSr's have the capability to understand it.

 

It's a game folks..........

[Cache Canucks]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Irvingdog:

"...I learned all about MGRS or Military Grid Refrence System..."

---

'Go in the door and up the stairs' (MGRS) sure as heck beats using lat/lon when working with a paper topo.

 

[Kerry.]

Where it was taken (or where it wasn't) taken could easily be "confirmed" with a "visible" display, date/time and position would solve that, but as usual not the case.

 

Cheers, Kerry.

 

I never get lost everybody keeps telling me where to go

[+Team DaSH]

quote:

---

Originally posted by dave and jaime:

makes you wonder if the photo was made for the press or something assuming it came from a reliable souce.

---

 

The New York Times? A reliable source?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

 

The empty can rattles the most...

[dave and jaime]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cache Canucks:

quote:

---

Originally posted by dave and jaime:

"...in the pic isnt the sun in the top left of the photo according to the shadow from the humvee/trailers but the shadow on the soldiers hand makes the sun look like it is in the lower right corner..."

---

Nah... that's not it. Look at the way the shadows fall from the edges of the GPSr's controls (the light is coming from the same 'upper left' direction).

---

 

dont see the shadows thrown by the keys. it looks to me as if the dark edge around the keys is just the elevated side of the key controls. i do notice that the antenna section, which is a lip, isnt throwing a shadow onto the gpsface you can also see a simalar effect with the lip around the screen.

[+Beagle]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kerry:

Where it was taken (or where it wasn't) taken could easily be "confirmed" with a "visible" display, date/time and position would solve that, but as usual not the case.

 

---

 

Had it really showed a viable display, then that person should have been ousted like Heraldo for giving direct information...

 

Myself, I don't think the shadows in the foreground match the shadows in the background.

 

Beagle

 

As soon as you idiot proof something, they go and make a better idiot!

[Cache Canucks]

quote:

---

Originally posted by dave and jaime:

"...dont see the shadows thrown by the keys. it looks to me as if the dark edge around the keys is just the elevated side of the key controls..."

---

Whether you call it a 'shadow' or an 'elevated edge', were the source of light coming from the lower right (as you suggested in an earlier post), the darkened areas around the keys would be in the wrong place [i think]. *If* there's any giveaway sign to be had about this photo, I don't believe that it's the shadows as they fall on the hand holding the GPSr ...who knows what type of irregularly shaped vehicle this person could have been standing close to (which might very well have cast the type of shadow seen on the hand). I'm no expert, but what made the photo look a little 'off' to me was the depth of field (if there's a photography buff out there, please chime in) and the almost-too-perfect crispness of the hand/GPSr. It may be a legit pic, but it sure brings to mind some of the 'creative cache log imagery' that was the subject of exhaustive discussion in these forums several months ago.

 

If, with a bit of software and a few minutes at a keyboard, you can remove a hand holding a GPSr from a photo (as I did a few posts back), it certainly wouldn't be difficult to 'add' one ...if you were so inclined.

 

It may all be conjecture, but it makes for an interesting topic!

[dave and jaime]

im just going by the shadows that are caused by the humvee in the foreground (they come directly out the rear of the humvee towards you) and the shadows on the hand look as if they are going away from you. if the person was taking a photo in front of a vehicle (say to our rear) it shouldnt throw any shadow onto his hand, judging by the shadow of the humvees.

 

anyway, my digital camera, and i suspect that this picture would have been taken with one, does take pictures similar to this, that is images in the foreground appear sharp and background images appear fuzzy due the difference in distance.

 

in any event the figures on the screen of the gps ought be readable and that indicates to me that there has been some work done on the picture. and when considers what is happening, it seems likely that any pictures coming out of the region would have some work done on them.

 

but guys there has to be a photo buff here, to explain how this picture was taken or made...

[freeside]

Okay. I confess. You guys have uncovered a giant conspiracy. There is no war in Iraq. It's all being staged by the same folks who faked the moon landings. Gotta go --- "Wag the Dog" is on!

[Cache Canucks]

quote:

---

Originally posted by freeside:

"...Okay. I confess. You guys have uncovered a giant conspiracy. There is no war in Iraq. It's all being staged by the same folks who faked the moon landings. Gotta go --- "Wag the Dog" is on!..."

---

Is this genuine heartfelt sarcasm, or is what you say actually true and you just want us to *think* that you're being sarcastic so that we don't believe it...? And don't think that we don't know what *they* are trying to keep from us ...like to keep the shiny side of the aluminum foil facing outwards when making our protective hats! Ya, ya, y'see, y'see...?!? *They* thought we could all be deceived and wear the shiny side on the INSIDE! But we *knew* ...we KNEW!!!

[+phantom4099]

I saw a special ops guy using a meridian on CNN.

 

I was whatching the "Mail Call" show on the history channel yesturday and saw that a gps 12 (I think) was in the survival gear.

 

Wyatt W.

 

The probability of someone watching you is directly proportional to the stupidity of your actions.

[Cape Cod Cacher]

I did 'Mail Call Marathon' yesterday too... I've seen that episode before (2-3 times). It's a GPS12XL, same as a 12, but takes an external antenna, so one could use a boat's unit. Discontinued

[+StarshipTrooper]

......I'm no expert, but what made the photo look a little 'off' to me was the depth of field (if there's a photography buff out there, please chime in) and the almost-too-perfect crispness of the hand/GPSr....

 

 

Well Canucks, I was an expert in photography in my past life. I do recall some of the details of the craft...

 

The crystal clear foreground with the out of focus background is no special trick and no indicator of legitimacy either. It's an old technique that has been used to enhance the perception of 3d on a 2d surface. You simply increase the shutter speed so that the f:stop (think, "iris") can be opened up. This decreases the depth of field so that only a small range is in focus. Now you focus on the near object that is the subject of the photo and, voila! - You have an unreal looking photo in which the subject almost pops out of the background. It's elementary.....

 

Now, if the background also went from blurry, to focused to blurry, as the distances progress from the camera - or if the whole photo was in sharp focus while showing signs of having been taken in low light - then I would question it on that basis.

[Cache Canucks]

quote:

---

Originally posted by StarshipTrooper:

"...I was an expert in photography in my past life. I do recall some of the details of the craft..."

---

I knew that there had to be someone out there who could lend some educated judgement to the discussion.

 

(pssst... you're not part of the conspiracy, are you...?)

[dweebe]

Before the war started the local (St. Louis) NBC affiliate did a story on Missouri Air National Guard guys, some of whom were going to Iraq. They showed a copy of the survival kit hanging on the wall in a training area. As part of the kit was a Garmin GPS 12

[+zenrandom]

A buddy of mine in the navy actually bought a bunch of garmin vistas for the people that go out in the little boats... helicopters...

 

I asked him why they didn't use the military stuff since it gets the nice precision encrypted code. His comment was that it was big, heavy, expensive, and harder to use.

 

-zr

 

-----

If it ain't broke, I can *fix* that...

[fieldkat]

Hmm...I am wondering if Uncle Sam is scrambling the GPS signal over Iraq or not. If the signal is being scrambled in that theater of operations, would the civilian GPS receivers have much accuracy? I wonder if the accuracy would be equal to the days of S/A or would it be less accurate? I think I read somewhere once that the Garmin GPS12's used in the survival vests had been modified to understand and use the military's GPS signal. I am not sure where or when I read that though.

 

- Trailkat

 

...

[dave and jaime]

quote:

---

Originally posted by trailkat:

Hmm...I am wondering if Uncle Sam is scrambling the GPS signal over Iraq or not. If the signal is being scrambled in that theater of operations, would the civilian GPS receivers have much accuracy? I wonder if the accuracy would be equal to the days of S/A or would it be less accurate? I think I read somewhere once that the Garmin GPS12's used in the survival vests had been modified to understand and use the military's GPS signal. I am not sure where or when I read that though.

 

- Trailkat

 

...

---

 

if the gps signals are 'scrambled' or s/a it turned 'on' over iraq it wouldnt matter that much anyway. i doubt that the 'civilian' grade recievers would be used in anything other than an emergency and if that was the case a couple hundred meters probably wouldnt matter anyway.

 

to my mind the only 'need' for accurate handheld gps recievers is geocaching anyway, if in and emergency situation the hundred meters or so of introduced errors wouldnt mean that much anyway.

[+GeneralBracket]

quote:

---

to my mind the only 'need' for accurate handheld gps recievers is geocaching anyway, if in and emergency situation the hundred meters or so of introduced errors wouldnt mean that much anyway.

---

 

If you want to call in a strike against a target that is in a populated area you might use a handheld GPS receiver to calculate where the targets coords are so as to minimize collateral damage. Or maybe you're in need of air support or a pickup in an urban area. A few hundered meters off in an area with tall buildings could be bad.

 

I really don't know what I'm talking about (concerning war, having never been in one). It just occurred to me that these might be reasons to have an accurate handheld receiver in a combat situation. Anyone with wartime experience could probably think of several more possibilities.

[Kerry.]

quote:

---

Originally posted by trailkat:

Hmm...I am wondering if Uncle Sam is scrambling the GPS signal over Iraq or not.

---

 

There's been no indication of that.

 

quote:

---

.... I wonder if the accuracy would be equal to the days of S/A or would it be less accurate?

---

 

SA is a variable thing and as far as is known, if it was on it can be cranked up to something like 2000m (at least?) as required.

 

quote:

---

I think I read somewhere once that the Garmin GPS12's used in the survival vests had been modified to understand and use the military's GPS signal

---

 

I'd doubt that and in any case if that was so then it's simply no longer a GPS12, at all.

 

Cheers, Kerry.

 

I never get lost everybody keeps telling me where to go

[Alphawolf]

quote:

---

---

I think I read somewhere once that the Garmin GPS12's used in the survival vests had been modified to understand and use the military's GPS signal

 

The Garmin receivers that the U.S. Air Force fighter pilots use in their survival kits, are straight-off-the-shelf Garmin 12's.

 

"Never take a sunset for granted. Stop what you are doing and enjoy it. You never know when it may be your last"

[+apersson850]

Regarding the depth of field is that normal, as it can be seen in the picture. The only thing one could wonder about, is that the light is probably rather good in Iraq, especially in the day in the desert. Most films used today are rather fast (sensitive). Getting a small depth of field requires a large aperture opening and/or a long focal length of the lens. That in turn requires a fast shutter speed.

The picture doesn't show the typically squeezed filed of perspective, usually resulting from using a telephoto at rather short distances to the object you are portraying.

 

Now, an old rule of thumb, from the ages when all cameras didn't have electronic light metering built-in, says that an ISO 100 film requires an aperture of f/16 at a shutter speed of 1/100 s. This assumes a day with a clear sky and sunlight, in an environment like what we have in Sweden (more vegetation than in the picture).

 

Desert conditions are much like snow conditions, which we do have in Sweden. That will move the time to something like 1/250 s in these conditions. Today, film is often ISO 200, which gives 1/500 s. With a focal lenght that seems reasonable for the picture in question, an aperture of f/4 is reasonable. With the conditions I assumed, that would require a shutter speed of 1/8000 s. This isn't uncommon on top-of-the-line cameras today. My newest Canon cameras (10 years old) range to 1/4000, at that time.

 

I'm not quite sure about the equivalent sensitivity of the electronic sensors, now assuming this is a digital camera, but with conventional film and a professional camera, this kind of picture can be taken.

 

Anders