The article clearly states that the lights could be a highway OR a pipeline.
It could also be both. The basis for the two are close; if you build a
pipeline, you might as well build a highway along side it. If you are
building a pipeline, and you want to explain the lights to someone, you
report it as a road and that is what gets put on the maps. Or, more likely,
if you want to build a pipeline, you build it along side an existing
highway.

If you want to be complete find a map of Kuwait and Iraq that shows where
the oil pipelines are... Hummm.. .that might be a little more difficult.

As to the existence of the article, there is a link to the Popular Mechanics
site from the link I provided which should remove all your doubt on that
point. Also, I have the original article right here with me. Says "Popular
Mechanics" right on the paper. <GRIN>

As to clouds covering only that part of the road and accounting for its
appearance over time; the original article speaks to that: "In Indialantic,
retired Air Force Col. Hyko Gayikian isn't sure what to make of Brandli's
speculation. He wonders if maybe Kuwait's lights were pre-existing features
that were temporarily shut down during the war. (Brandli says no, that he
checked other photos prior to the March war campaign and could find no such
lights.)"

Finally note that the map is from 1996. The roads were already there when
the weather satellite photos were taken. Why the progression of lights? Did
they just electrify the roadway with street lights all along? Or did they
build a pipeline along the existing road?

Even if it is just a highway, why build a highway to a country that you have
just been at war with? Notice on the map how the highway runs up the boarder
and then narrows down? And there is a "town" there? Abdali. This pattern is
repeated to the west with he major road to Salmey. During the first Gulf War
(remember, I was in that one) Sadam claimed that he invaded Kuwait because
they were drilling sideways over the boarder and stealing oil from Iraq.
Maybe this northern road/pipeline was a second sideways oil well.

That sequence makes the most sense to me. You first build the road to a
place where you have found a big reserve, then you drill and if you get a
good tap, you finish up by building a pipe.

Notice that in the May 3rd picture the western line stops well short of the
boarder. The new northern line goes all the way PAST the boarder. 

Notice that only the "roads" that go to little "towns" right at the boarder
are "lit" None of the other roads are like that. Why are those special? Why
aren't the "roads" in Iraq lit up? Could it be that Iraq uses trains to
transport their oil to the port? Or has their oil fields near the river or
canal? They aren't funded as well as Kuwait by a long ways. They can't
afford big construction projects and the technology that pipelines require.

In any case, the point is that the timing is very coincidental. We invade
Iraq and just before we do, Kuwait builds "something" new from their port to
the major oil fields in Iraq. 

It is all about the oil. Why is that hard to believe? 

New Orleans is about the oil as well. And about shipping of other goods.
From:
http://www.stratfor.com/news/archive/050903-geopolitics_katrina.php
"By all accounts, the Louisiana Offshore Oil Port, which services
supertankers in the Gulf, is intact. Port Fourchon, which is the center of
extraction operations in the Gulf, has sustained damage but is recoverable.
The status of the oil platforms is unclear and it is not known what the
underwater systems look like, but on the surface, the damage - though not
trivial -- is manageable. "

"The oil fields, pipelines and ports required a skilled workforce in order
to operate. That workforce requires homes. "

"New Orleans is not optional for the United States' commercial
infrastructure. It is a terrible place for a city to be located, but exactly
the place where a city must exist. With that as a given, a city will return
there because the alternatives are too devastating."

---
James.
 
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: piclist-bounces@mit.edu 
> [mailto:piclist-bounces@mit.edu] On Behalf Of Russell McMahon
> Sent: 2005 Sep 04, Sun 01:34
> To: Microcontroller discussion list - Public.
> Subject: Re: [OT] New Orleans
> 
> >> What happened to the thousands of troops that should be delivering 
> >> aid and such on the home-front in the us?
> 
> > Ahem... In case you haven't heard, they are overseas right now 
> > lowering our gasoline prices... You have noticed the 
> reduction in gas 
> > prices right?
> >
> > And before anyone has the BALLS to say something about 
> "humanitarian" 
> > this or WMD's that, read this page:
> > http://www.massmind.org/other/war4oil That is SOLID (but very
> > under-reported) proof that oil is was and will be the only 
> reason for 
> > the US invasion of Iraq.
> 
> List owner or no, friend (I think :-) ) or not, I'd suggest a 
> bit more discernment on what one calls be a bit more 
> discerning about what I'd call "solid, verifiable, cold hard 
> facts...".  Google has 36 hits on / "the appearance of a line 
> of light" kuwait/  so it's still out there. 
> Given that this was 2002 and given the hungriness of SOME 
> news oprganisations to make headlines, no matter how bad the 
> men in black wish to lean on them, and given the ease with 
> which either a road or a pipeline could be checked out, and 
> given the amazingly consistent nature of the line on the 
> photo, and given the *LARGE* splodge of light which the new 
> line approaches and then closely passes in these photos, and ...
> 
> THEN
> 
> I'd tend to check it out personally in more detail before I 
> relied on a Popular Mechanics article for a cornerstone 
> document in my proof.
> 
> So:
> 
> Kuwait is not very large. That whole line of light is perhaps 
> 50 miles 
> long.     It has apparently "extended" in the photos by maybe 30+ 
> miles in 22 days, or about 1.5 miles/day. It's also superbly 
> well lit. 
> The apparent width of the trace when compared to built up 
> areas suggests more than construction lights.
> 
> Hey, lets look at a map!  eg
> 
>         
> http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/middle_east_and_asia/kuwait_rel96.jpg
> 
> OK! Starts near or at Al Jahrah. One of very few major 
> centres shown on this scale of map.
> Pasees slightly to left of Ar Raw    datayn, another centre shown on 
> this map. And these two centres are joined by not just a road 
> but an "expressway". It's THE major route from Kuwait city to 
> the Iraqi border and, possibly more importantly here, major 
> Kuwaiti oilfields at Raudhatain (oilfield not shown by name 
> on map above.)
> 
> Another map gives an essentially equivalent picture
> 
>         http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/middle_east_and_asia/kuwait.gif
> 
> The oil field can be seen here
> 
>     
> http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/middle_east_and_asia/al_basrah_
> iraq_80.jpg
> 
> Notice on all the maps the spur road to the right to the 
> concentration of lights, which matches what is seen on the photo.
> 
> Notice also another line of light extending from the centre 
> to the lower left. On the early photo it doesn't extend all 
> the weay to the border but on the second it does. This is 
> also an expressway extending to Salemy, just short of the 
> Saudi Arabian border, where it becomes a normal road and 
> enters Saudi Arabia.
> 
> One reasonable explanation of the two photos is that there 
> was more cloud cover in the later one.
> 
> BUT the key thing here is that IF this really was a Popular 
> Mechanics article, and there is reason to doubt this, then 
> they were 'had' by their "retired Air Force meteorological 
> officer", they didn't bother to even look at a map and see 
> that they were looking at one of the biggest roads in Kuwait, 
> that it was not at all in an isolated area and that it joined 
> major cities and oil centres. I think it's more likely that 
> someone decided to create a hoax page to either make their 
> point or to make people look silly and that others have 
> picked it up and used it undiscerningly.
> 
> _____________________
> 
> None of the above makes any comment at all on the suggestion 
> that the US is in Iraq because of their oil. I can't imagine 
> that anyone of any integrity or intelligence would claim that 
> this isn't a factor, if we disqualify politicians, oil 
> company executives, tobacco industry executives and anyone 
> with a vested interest from consdierationm. [
> :-) ]. BUT I'd also be very sad if anyone believed it was the 
> only significant factor.
> 
> 
> 
> >> on wondering why George W Bush doesn't push to increase aid and 
> >> rescue efforts.
> 
> I heard on NZ TV yesterday that an interim figure of $US10.5 
> billion has been allocated for aid. Sounds like a good start.
> 
> Starting doing things sooner and more capably would certainly 
> have been desirable. One way to achieve this if this sort of 
> thing ever happens again is to pick up the telephone and 
> call, wait for it, ta da, Oxfam. I don't know how they do it, 
> but after the Tsunami struck they were flying in aid in 
> volume days to weeks ahead of other organisations (icnluding 
> Red Cross and the UN). I suspect they could provide some 
> useful guidance on how to hit the ground running.
> 
> > Our technology may well be more advanced, but the Dutch are smart 
> > enough to actually FUND the construction of water 
> management projects.
> 
> Google /"delta project"  netherlands /   or deltawerken, to see the 
> scale at which the Dutch have dealt with water - arguably 
> largest engineering project on earth in its day.
> 
> > The fact of the matter is that the death toll is a drop in 
> the bucket 
> > when you compare it to other things.
> > - Coming up on 2000 of our soldiers dead in Iraq with no results to 
> > show for it in terms of gas prices
> 
> You can't shoot the straw man that you have set up ;-).
> If the admin DID comment on correlations twixt oil prices and 
> Iraq, what would you say  ;-).
> And who can say with any certainty( apart from people who are 
> immovably certain of their correctness) what the Iraq 
> situation has done to oil prices. I'm no politician but I 
> would have thought that any Iraqi involvement aimed at oil 
> supply would have been related to long term security of 
> supply and not short term prices.
> 
> > OR WMDs
> 
> Nolo contendere ;-)
> 
> > OR any improvement in living conditions for Iraqis
> 
> Rubbish.
> 
> Quality of life, which encompasses but is far from limited 
> to, living conditions, is vastly superior for the majority of 
> Iraqis since the demise of S.H., as measured by the behaviour 
> and opinions of the majority of Iraqis. Those who were most 
> happy with how things were going in SH days were the Sunni 
> minority who dictated (literally) what the large majority of 
> their countrymen should do. They are now largely less than 
> fully happy with how things are going - a reasonably good 
> sign that things are going better than they were. A moments 
> reflection on who the strife in Iraq is being maintained by 
> suggests that freedom, as masured in terms understandable to 
> the US founding fathers, has greatly increased. If you don't 
> care to factor freedom into quality of life you get an easier 
> measure, but one which is of little practical use.
> 
> Test: In the US, would you rather
> 
> - EITHER live in relative peace under a violent murderous 
> dictator and a (figuratively) jack-booted minority, knowing 
> that members of your family and friends may be arbitrarily 
> vanished at any moment with no good cause and no redress, but 
> that you are sage enough if you lick the rulers boots and 
> don't complain
> - OR live in a situation akin to revolutionary US where you 
> are at war with the usurping but well supported minority, 
> fighting in the cause of freedom and the right to self determination.
> 
> Clue:    Read the verses of the US national anthem which are not 
> usually sung. Note what the footprints are washed out with.
> 
> Freedom isn't free.
> 
> The US's motives in Iraq may well be far from pure. Few would 
> doubt it. But the potential gains for the people are vast. 
> Oil and WMD notwithstanding, the loss of 2000 odd US lives 
> (and climbing) is a badge of honor that may be worn with sad 
> pride if it results in something significantly closer to true 
> freedom for an oppressed people.
> 
> > - 3,000 dead on 9/11.
> 
> Straw man walking, again.
> The claim by opponents is that 911 was totally unrelated to 
> Iraq. You can't claim thsi AND count the 911 deaths as a cost of Iraq.
> 
> > National hysteria against Islamic peoples.
> > Loss of privacy via the "Patriot" Act.
> 
> Again: 911 was the *catalyst* for this. And 911 does not 
> relate to Iraq, remember.
> 
> If people in the US admin or others choose to promote such 
> things it is not basically a fault of the catalyst but people 
> using a pretext to promote an agenda. That gets into 
> political areas in which i am woefully versed, don't wish to 
> comment, and which are specifically here proscribed.
> 
> At the risk of crossing a poorly defined line, and trying to 
> stick rigorously to "solid, verifiable, hard, cold, facts", 
> it's worth considering the "suggestion" that the Islamic 
> 'extremists' who have taken the battle to the west are 
> following the formal dictats of true Islam, as codified in 
> the Quran. While it may very well be true that the vast 
> majority of Muslims seek to dwell peacefully and non 
> violently with other peoples, this is not the behaviour that 
> a strict Muslim would be expected to observe in the long 
> term. While "we the people" in Islam may well be happy to 
> depart from the Quran's instructions in this area, it is not 
> something that diligent Islamic leaders can easily shun. 
> Reservations about the long term intentions and methodology 
> of Islam is only due diligence for any non-Islamic nation.
> 
> I'd be genuinely happy for any Muslim to point out that I was 
> wrong based on the prepondrance of what the Quran says. ie 
> I'm not questioning what Muslims as a whole may wish to do, 
> but saying that the core written code instructs conquest.
> 
> > - Better than 60,000 dead on the roads in auto accidents 
> every single 
> > year.
> 
> And over 1,000,000 aborted 'fetuses' in the US each year.
> 
> > Auto and Oil companies post record earnings.
> 
> Nolo contendere  :-)
> 
> > And, please note, that although I certainly have a 
> political opinion 
> > on this subject, and the choices of the facts I reported 
> may be biased 
> > by that...
> 
> Anyone who can see the above as apolitical MUST be an 
> engineer with his eye shut :-). Welcome to the club.
> 
> > But stay away from the political OPINIONs.
> 
> Oh, absolutely :-).
> FWIW I have about no US political opinions and precious few in NZ. 
> Apart from noting that the NZ Labour party (closest thing to 
> Democrats but quite different) is immoral and that the NZ  
> National Party (closest thing to Republicans but quite 
> different) is amoral, and that all the other 15 or so parties 
> are dangerous to vote for, I have little of value to say politically.
> 
> 
> 
>         Russell McMahon
> 
> --
> http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive View/change 
> your membership options at 
> http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
> 

-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist