The only "Alta-class" equivalent vessel present in the Baltic Sea during BALTOPS22 was the KMN Hinnøy, which can now be accounted for using AIS data and satellite imagery.
Not really a debunking. A fair description is that you've failed to confirm some elements of Hersh's story using open sources.
The times at which public satellites pass over an area are known. If you were trying to spoof AIS covertly, it would be pretty dumb to be in a location discordant with AIS at one of the 6 times in 7 days it would be captured on public satellite images.
Maybe you'll be able to dig up a few more images, but given that you write that the distance between the island and the pipeline location could be covered in approx. 62 minutes (and presumably a trip to NS1 would be even shorter), you'd need a lot more (5x? 10x?) timepoints to convincingly disprove the possibility of spoofing. I think it's pretty dishonest to claim that six instances of concordance in a time period of 168 hours proves 100% concordance, but you write the rest of your articles assuming 100% concordance.
You also don't show us the AIS data for the Hinnoy before June 8th and after June 15th, unlike the other ships where you supposedly show their entire paths for the month, would love to see that data too.
Do you have AIS tracking data for the Karmoy? You mention it's with the Alta by June 29th, but what about earlier in the month?
It's also not clearly stated in your articles whether the non-Hinnoy vessels had AIS switched on at all times during the exercises, would love for that to be cleared up. If they did and were verified by satellite ~daily, we could probably rule out the non-Hinnoy/Karmoy vessels as Bergen is too far away. All bets are off if there are periods of >2 days without satellite confirmation, though.
I've seen your response that "the entire story Hersh is trying to build is that BALTOPS22 was a cover for the divers[, which] would be pointless if they [switched off/spoofed AIS]":
Hersh claims that most of the nations nearby were in on the plan in one form or another (Sweden, Denmark, Norway), and we don't know how others (Germany, Poland, NATO exercise participants) would react to some ship involved in exercises having discrepancies between radar and AIS. You don't establish in any of your articles thus far whether a discrepancy between radar and AIS for some ship would be detected/noticed by nearby ships or nations, let alone that it would set off alarms, let alone alarms to the extent that the ship would be investigated, let alone that Norway/USA/Sweden/Denmark couldn't come up with some satisfying-enough justification.
Same goes for the idea that the NATO ships in formation "would have noticed if the KMN Hinnøy had shut off AIS and then left the formation at full speed towards the location [of] the Nord Stream 1 leaks". Would they? What if it was said to be part of the exercise? You can't just assert things.
The statement of "including dive time", this is an assumption that divers planted charges yet no evidence provided by any pundit to support the scenario. Any ship or submarine with a torpedo launch capability could have done that job far more effectively, with less risk, full deniability and if anything that is how the job got done. It is bordering on ridiculous to think a ship and divers were used for a task that required deniability in every sense. But lets consider this, maybe it was a coincidence and the pipe was not maintained properly or had a faulty joint or the protective coating round it had become compromised and rot had set in that was not known about and it blew out. Divers indeed.
You've stopped allowing public comments on your recent posts, so I'll address the new argument here. Still eager to hear back about the Karmoy, confirmation of 24/7 AIS tracking for all Alta/Oksoy vessels through June, and AIS tracking for the Hinnoy during all of June.
Please explain why "the West and NATO are happy continuing to state that all of the Nord Stream leaks are the result of direct sabotage". Assuming your theory is correct, what's the drawback to going public? You discredit Russia's pipeline infrastructure, and prove that they engaged in international terrorism (and that you didn't).
You quote the seismology numbers from Sweden and Denmark, then run some calculations. Which equation did you use? You mention that there is a range of possibilities for seismic->explosion, but assign a single value with no uncertainty (magnitude 1.8->7.6kg TNT). Then you say magnitude 1.8 can be estimated from 20-3000kg TNT. Huh? Also, where did 1.8 even come from? Sweden reports 1.9 magnitude, described by you in the previous paragraph. Not very diligent work...
Correlations of underwater explosion magnitude with seismic readings are beyond my expertise, and I suspect yours as well. How reliable are they? Are they more likely to underestimate or overestimate explosion size? Why not get a statement from actual experts on the topic? Friendly tip: Call up Bittner et al, scientists love to discuss their work.
You say an accidental pipe rupture would produce some amount of energy too, fine. Surely this has happened before? You've gone through the trouble of finding literature on seismic readings->explosive energy. Where's the equivalent evidence on accidental pipeline bursting? Do violent pipeline ruptures occur? Would we expect accidental ruptures to show similar seismic patterns to explosions? Have any other accidental ruptures led to seismic readings consistent with explosions (recall: Swedish and Danish seismologists say the readings were consistent with explosions)? Can you present your full methodology, including calculations?
Not really a debunking. A fair description is that you've failed to confirm some elements of Hersh's story using open sources.
The times at which public satellites pass over an area are known. If you were trying to spoof AIS covertly, it would be pretty dumb to be in a location discordant with AIS at one of the 6 times in 7 days it would be captured on public satellite images.
Maybe you'll be able to dig up a few more images, but given that you write that the distance between the island and the pipeline location could be covered in approx. 62 minutes (and presumably a trip to NS1 would be even shorter), you'd need a lot more (5x? 10x?) timepoints to convincingly disprove the possibility of spoofing. I think it's pretty dishonest to claim that six instances of concordance in a time period of 168 hours proves 100% concordance, but you write the rest of your articles assuming 100% concordance.
You also don't show us the AIS data for the Hinnoy before June 8th and after June 15th, unlike the other ships where you supposedly show their entire paths for the month, would love to see that data too.
Do you have AIS tracking data for the Karmoy? You mention it's with the Alta by June 29th, but what about earlier in the month?
It's also not clearly stated in your articles whether the non-Hinnoy vessels had AIS switched on at all times during the exercises, would love for that to be cleared up. If they did and were verified by satellite ~daily, we could probably rule out the non-Hinnoy/Karmoy vessels as Bergen is too far away. All bets are off if there are periods of >2 days without satellite confirmation, though.
I've seen your response that "the entire story Hersh is trying to build is that BALTOPS22 was a cover for the divers[, which] would be pointless if they [switched off/spoofed AIS]":
Hersh claims that most of the nations nearby were in on the plan in one form or another (Sweden, Denmark, Norway), and we don't know how others (Germany, Poland, NATO exercise participants) would react to some ship involved in exercises having discrepancies between radar and AIS. You don't establish in any of your articles thus far whether a discrepancy between radar and AIS for some ship would be detected/noticed by nearby ships or nations, let alone that it would set off alarms, let alone alarms to the extent that the ship would be investigated, let alone that Norway/USA/Sweden/Denmark couldn't come up with some satisfying-enough justification.
Same goes for the idea that the NATO ships in formation "would have noticed if the KMN Hinnøy had shut off AIS and then left the formation at full speed towards the location [of] the Nord Stream 1 leaks". Would they? What if it was said to be part of the exercise? You can't just assert things.
By the time you are done, the only thing in the Hersh article that may survive is the mention of undersea explosions.
Great work, Oliver, have been tracking your progress on Twitter. Good use of multiple sources to debunk the other flawed analysis!
Thank you Mr Alexander
You may be interested in the evidence provided by John Mark Dougan, a pro-russian american living in Donbass [so probably legit].
Dougan received testimony from a NATO naval diving administrator who saw unusual things at BALTOPS 2022.
Dougan posted 2 videos:
1. 'I Received a Whistleblower Letter about Military Exercises near Nordstream... It said this!' by John Mark Dougan, posted 4 Oct 2022
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1c0jvJWqf10
2. 'Nordstream. I Was Right- My Whistleblower Told Me 4 MONTHS AGO' by John Mark Dougan, posted 9 Feb 2023
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sd908X8cuzg&t=4336s
You are obviously an excellent researcher. I'm curious what you make of the Dougan evidence.
Success.:))P
I is easy for a major country to fake AIS signal.
The statement of "including dive time", this is an assumption that divers planted charges yet no evidence provided by any pundit to support the scenario. Any ship or submarine with a torpedo launch capability could have done that job far more effectively, with less risk, full deniability and if anything that is how the job got done. It is bordering on ridiculous to think a ship and divers were used for a task that required deniability in every sense. But lets consider this, maybe it was a coincidence and the pipe was not maintained properly or had a faulty joint or the protective coating round it had become compromised and rot had set in that was not known about and it blew out. Divers indeed.
You've stopped allowing public comments on your recent posts, so I'll address the new argument here. Still eager to hear back about the Karmoy, confirmation of 24/7 AIS tracking for all Alta/Oksoy vessels through June, and AIS tracking for the Hinnoy during all of June.
Please explain why "the West and NATO are happy continuing to state that all of the Nord Stream leaks are the result of direct sabotage". Assuming your theory is correct, what's the drawback to going public? You discredit Russia's pipeline infrastructure, and prove that they engaged in international terrorism (and that you didn't).
You quote the seismology numbers from Sweden and Denmark, then run some calculations. Which equation did you use? You mention that there is a range of possibilities for seismic->explosion, but assign a single value with no uncertainty (magnitude 1.8->7.6kg TNT). Then you say magnitude 1.8 can be estimated from 20-3000kg TNT. Huh? Also, where did 1.8 even come from? Sweden reports 1.9 magnitude, described by you in the previous paragraph. Not very diligent work...
Correlations of underwater explosion magnitude with seismic readings are beyond my expertise, and I suspect yours as well. How reliable are they? Are they more likely to underestimate or overestimate explosion size? Why not get a statement from actual experts on the topic? Friendly tip: Call up Bittner et al, scientists love to discuss their work.
You say an accidental pipe rupture would produce some amount of energy too, fine. Surely this has happened before? You've gone through the trouble of finding literature on seismic readings->explosive energy. Where's the equivalent evidence on accidental pipeline bursting? Do violent pipeline ruptures occur? Would we expect accidental ruptures to show similar seismic patterns to explosions? Have any other accidental ruptures led to seismic readings consistent with explosions (recall: Swedish and Danish seismologists say the readings were consistent with explosions)? Can you present your full methodology, including calculations?
Do they have subs?