Wing PAO Comments on "Black Helicopters" Flying Around

[RADIOMAN015]

Looks like the CO Wing PAO has become the "go to guy" for information on "black helicopter" flights in Colorado.

http://durangoherald.com/sections/News/2010/08/28/Black_helicopters_doing_excercises_prompting_calls/

Hey it least it's pretty good that the press call CAP now with their questions :clap:  BUT I'm not sure we are the organization to be answering that question

RM

[DakRadz]

Apparently, COWG has decided to practice with an upgrade on the black vans.

Thanks to this wing, this year's Conference will result in the elimination of the Triangle Thingy and clarification on at least 70% of the issues with Regs and Manuals. After the Chinook is done, our NHQ staff will see the light.

*whop-whop-whop-whop* Inbound!

~~~~~

If you view the comments section, people reading this are now blaming the CAP for the issues they have with the training. I agree, sir- CAP has no helos, so why are we doing press releases for THIS?

[Smithsonia]

Lt. Col. Mike Daniels is a very fine Wing PAO. I love working with him and for him. His craft skills are quite advanced. The Colorado Wing is most fortunate to have him.

Numerous units come to Colorado for high altitude training. We've had a lot of rescue work done by these training yet on duty military
crews. http://www.nola.com/news/index.ssf/2009/08/military_helicopter_crash_leav.html
We are lucky they are here too. http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/nation/ap/53733787.html

[RiverAux]

Got to wonder why a CAP member thought it wise to comment on something having nothing to do with CAP....I can't believe many PAOs would knowingly do this.  Almost have to think that the reporter scammed him in some way.

[Smithsonia]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
River;
As you like. But, your speculation has no purpose. If you'd like to lodge a complaint. Do so. If not, then state your purpose.
If no purpose is in your head... then it is vacuous wondering. Old men wondering aloud should be left alone with their idle thoughts.
Bothering to unravel wanderings and wonderings is the work of clerics and psychological counselors not PAOs.

[Short Field]

This is just a case of a rural county newspaper asking one of their local aviation experts about something that happen.  The local expert in this case also happened to be the COWG PAO and he provided a reasonable and professional response.  Happens all the time all across the county.

Apparently, COWG has decided to practice with an upgrade on the black vans.

What makes you say that? 

[RiverAux]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
River;
As you like. But, your speculation has no purpose. If you'd like to lodge a complaint. Do so. If not, then state your purpose.
If no purpose is in your head... then it is vacuous wondering. Old men wondering aloud should be left alone with their idle thoughts.
Bothering to unravel wanderings and wonderings is the work of clerics and psychological counselors not PAOs.

My "speculation" was actually giving the guy the benefit of the doubt.  Its also possible that he commented but did not intend to do so as a CAP representative and the reporter took it upon themself to identify him as a CAP PAO because the reporter happened to know it. 

But, if you're stating that he knowing commented on this story in his role as a CAP PAO, then yes, he is in the wrong.  Its not our job to comment on what the military or any other organization is doing. 

[Smithsonia]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
River;
As you like. But, your speculation has no purpose. If you'd like to lodge a complaint. Do so. If not, then state your purpose.
If no purpose is in your head... then it is vacuous wondering. Old men wondering aloud should be left alone with their idle thoughts.
Bothering to unravel wanderings and wonderings is the work of clerics and psychological counselors not PAOs.

My "speculation" was actually giving the guy the benefit of the doubt.  Its also possible that he commented but did not intend to do so as a CAP representative and the reporter took it upon themself to identify him as a CAP PAO because the reporter happened to know it. 

But, if you're stating that he knowing commented on this story in his role as a CAP PAO, then yes, he is in the wrong.  Its not our job to comment on what the military or any other organization is doing.

River;
This a man that used his real name (Mike Daniels), and didn't speculate versus yourself who speculated anonymously (RiverAux isn't what your mom named you. It is your screen name).

Mike was asked a question and gave an answer. Don't speculate about things you don't know and when you do have the courtesy of signing your real name, particularly when you infer that another man did something wrong. It is a simple distinction. Give Mike credit - not an anonymous speculation.

(We have briefings on similar military operations all the time - although I can't say that I know about this particular incident. In Colorado we are part of the State Division of Military Affairs and have clean lines of communications. Of course, some things they want us to know. Some things they don't. Low flying helos? They usually let us know or we can find out pretty quick. They probably also called the local Sheriff too. Knowing Mike he gave the better quote. In journalism, you'll usually check more than one source. Using Mike's quote - and I am speculating but using my real name to do it - could be more form  - "better quote" and less function or the "only authority" on the subject contacted.)

[RiverAux]

Where did I speculate other than on ways that might absolve him of some responsbility for commenting on something that shouldn't have been commented on by CAP?  Jeez, you'd think I'd get some credit for that, but I suppose not. 

Assuming it is a fact that he gave the interview and that the quotes are accurate, we're talking about facts, not speculation.  Now, it is also a fact that I'm not aware that this violates any official CAP policy or regulation.  Although the old CAPM-190 did have a section saying that CAP PAOs shouldn't comment on aircraft crashes that we weren't involved in, which would lead you to believe that CAP doesn't want you talking about non-CAP stuff.  And even if it isn't in the regulation, isn't it common sense that we shouldn't be speaking about activities that don't concern us?   

Are you saying that because the military department may have told CAP about similar missions that they were conducting that it is ok for CAP to make public comments about those operations?  If anything, that would be a serious OPSEC violation unless they specifically authorized us to talk about them (which I doubt they would). 

[Smithsonia]

^^^^^^^^^^^
You guys are ignorant about what happened... and lazy too boot. The Durango Herald has their phone number on their website. Mike's number is on the CO/WG website front page. However if you call up and maintain anonymity - You won't get much more than a bums rush.

So instead of inferring anything improper was done, instead of speculating, instead of expecting me to answer this trivial pursuit... call and ask. Get to the bottom of this travesty and miscarriage, yourself.

If I cared about this - I would. But I don't. However, I don't ask questions, insinuate, or infer -  when the reputation or conduct of another member is considered - Particularly when I don't first know what happened. Like many things you want answers, won't take trouble, and won't tell us who is calling.

This is routine traffic handled in a routine manner with names, places, and dates for your perusal. I can "speculate" on 4 or 5 ways this quote came to be and all are perfectly appropriate, within channels, and done as a favor for the sheriff, National Guard, or State Office of Military affairs.

What is remarkable about this is: 3 faceless screen names are calling into question a fine piece of work by a good member and are
wondering if this fine member speculated and said something he shouldn't. Might I add Mike has shown personal and professional responsibility and RiverAux, Radiomano15, and Dakradz - haven't.

I should publicaly belittle you for sport... I guess I just did. My given name is below for reference.

[PHall]

^^^^^^^^^^^
You guys are ignorant about what happened... and lazy too boot. The Durango Herald has their phone number on their website. Mike's number is on the CO/WG website front page. However if you call up and maintain anonymity - You won't get much more than a bums rush.

So instead of inferring anything improper was done, instead of speculating, instead of expecting me to answer this trivial pursuit... call and ask. Get to the bottom of this travesty and miscarriage, yourself.

If I cared about this - I would. But I don't. However, I don't ask questions, insinuate, or infer -  when the reputation or conduct of another member is considered - Particularly when I don't first know what happened. Like many things you want answers, won't take trouble, and won't tell us who is calling.

This is routine traffic handled in a routine manner with names, places, and dates for your perusal. I can "speculate" on 4 or 5 ways this quote came to be and all are perfectly appropriate, within channels, and done as a favor for the sheriff, National Guard, or State Office of Military affairs.

What is remarkable about this is: 3 faceless screen names are calling into question a fine piece of work by a good member and are
wondering if this fine member speculated and said something he shouldn't. Might I add Mike has shown personal and professional responsibility and RiverAux, Radiomano15, and Dakradz - haven't.

I should publicaly belittle you for sport... I guess I just did. My given name is below for reference.

Yeah, go ahead and belittle them, and lower yourself down to their level. :clap:

That'll do wonders for YOUR creditability...

[Smithsonia]

PHall;
You've got the same problem of anonymity too. Can one be credible and anonymous? Perhaps, but let me be direct using the word you put in play.

"Credibility" is a poor word choice for YOU. Logic makes one credible. Being on the right side of an issue makes one credible. Taking a stand at the right time, doing the right thing, even offering practical advice to resolve the question in a logical manner - those are all credible acts. When you think about it - credibility is a vote of the collective conscience. As in; "That sounds credible (believable) to me."

Fighting bullies who are without identity, conscience, logic, or knowledge, is obviously not a thing YOU would do.

There is a moral issue here. That moral issue is not small. Clearly drawing the moral issue is a worthy task. If need be, I'll gladly do this alone. Now back to the topic.

PHAL, DakRadz, RiverAux, Radioman015;
What moral justification on earth promotes YOUR kind of thinking? I mean besides the rule of mob law. Please come up with something better. Something credible.

[RADIOMAN015]

PHall;

There is a moral issue here. That moral issue is not small. Clearly drawing the moral issue is a worthy task. If need be, I'll gladly do this alone. Now back to the topic.

PHAL, DakRadz, RiverAux, Radioman015;
What moral justification on earth promotes YOUR kind of thinking? I mean besides the rule of mob law. Please come up with something better. Something credible.

Ed, I thought my comments weren't bashing the gentleman at all.  I'm sure he is a very dedicated CAP volunteer. :clap:   I thought it was funny to read this. I get the google news on CAP emailed to me everyday and it is interesting to see the type of stories published with CAP involvement.    So I guess we can't laugh at ourselves on some of these stories published can we
RM

[RiverAux]

I can "speculate" on 4 or 5 ways this quote came to be and all are perfectly appropriate, within channels, and done as a favor for the sheriff, National Guard, or State Office of Military affairs.

Yeah, I tried to speculate on ways that this was appropriate and that didn't go over very well apparently so you might want to stop doing that as well. 

If you'd like to lodge a complaint

By the way, you've been around long to know that this is a senseless recommendation.  If I thought this was some sort of serious issue (which I actually don't) and wanted to complain about it, my complaint would need to make it all the way through my chain of command and then over to the other state.  Now, what Wing Commander do you know that is going to get that involved in complaining about someone in another Wing?  Maybe they would if the action somehow made their own Wing look bad, but beyond that it ain't going to happen, so why bother. 

We're on this board to discuss CAP topics.  Are you really advocating that CAP members from around the country launch a complaint campaign every time a thread brings up some action taken by a CAP member that might not have been a good idea?  If you'd rather continue to keep attacking the people discussing a topic (4 times in one thread without a lock so far) rather than participating in the discussion, maybe this isn't the place for you. 

[Smithsonia]

^^^^^^^^^
Radioman;
I suppose innocence is a credible defense. Since you spent 15 hours and 12 replies waiting to declare it... that would usually indicate you were waiting for clarity on the issue. Apparently, moral outrage or indignation comes slow for your character. You spoke nothing against those who dishonorably accused another man of an unrighteous act. Eventually you only offered your innocence and didn't fight for another's innocence. How do you think a mob gathers?

RadioMan;
Are you truly innocent? No.

Are you...
Slow? Easily Misguided? Hapless? Ambiguous, Anonymous, and Ignominious? Yes.

While this may seem a little harsh - there is a distinction worth making.
Moral Leadership is not just a title. It means what it says. Practice some!!!

[Smithsonia]

I can "speculate" on 4 or 5 ways this quote came to be and all are perfectly appropriate, within channels, and done as a favor for the sheriff, National Guard, or State Office of Military affairs.

Yeah, I tried to speculate on ways that this was appropriate and that didn't go over very well apparently so you might want to stop doing that as well. 

If you'd like to lodge a complaint

By the way, you've been around long to know that this is a senseless recommendation.  If I thought this was some sort of serious issue (which I actually don't) and wanted to complain about it, my complaint would need to make it all the way through my chain of command and then over to the other state.  Now, what Wing Commander do you know that is going to get that involved in complaining about someone in another Wing?  Maybe they would if the action somehow made their own Wing look bad, but beyond that it ain't going to happen, so why bother. 

We're on this board to discuss CAP topics.  Are you really advocating that CAP members from around the country launch a complaint campaign every time a thread brings up some action taken by a CAP member that might not have been a good idea?  If you'd rather continue to keep attacking the people discussing a topic (4 times in one thread without a lock so far) rather than participating in the discussion, maybe this isn't the place for you.

River:
A discussion? Really. I've offered a series of solutions, resolutions, investigative tools, and ways to determine if your ramblings are true. This isn't a discussion it is chasing naked crazy people with butterfly nets reduced to words.

Investigative tools. (call Mike, the Herald, and the IG)
Resolution. Don't accuse people anonymously. It isn't fair and most times it is dispicable.
Solution: Truth. 

Apparently this isn't a discussion at all. Anymore than a marching parade of hooded KKK members is a cheer leading squad. It is a platform for wondering about your figments. So I am beginning to wonder too. What moral universe produced you.

[wuzafuzz]

I also wondered how a CAP PAO came to comment publicly on "black helo" operations, which are a favorite topic of conspiracy theorists and tin foil hat wearers world-wide.  I do know and respect the PAO in question and I remain a bit curious.

The news story is in fact a departure from the typical CAP fare.  It's perfectly natural to ask about it in a forum intended for discussion about all things CAP.  The article didn't raise my curiosity to the point of contacting Mike or to post on CAPTalk.  I'd actually forgotten about it until I saw this thread.  Now I've got something to say because the tone of conversation in this thread disappoints and alarms me.  After all, this is a publicly accessible Internet forum.  Is it too much to ask for PAO's to keep the conversation civil?  Please...take the really nasty stuff to PM's or exercise restraint.

The story behind the story may actually be interesting, and perhaps a learning opportunity for PAO's and MIO's of lesser experience. 

As for anonymity on CAPTalk: the administrators permit it.  It is a matter of choice whether to place our names in the public domain, and in what context.  My name would accompany more posts if this was a private forum for CAP members.  As an assistant squadron PAO I am quite cautious about ensuring my personal comments and opinions are not mistaken as Eric the PAO representing CAP.  If that results in slightly less credibility on CAPTalk, so be it. 

Most of the actual names on CAPTalk mean absolutely nothing to me.  They are no more valuable than screen names.  I judge the credibility of a CAPTalker by the content of their posts just as I do with those who only offer screen names.  The name only adds to a person's credibility if I know them outside CAPTalk.  Heck, sometimes knowing them detracts from their stock in my book. ;-)

Eric W. Schwarm
Speaking of helicopters, Semper Fidelis to my son, who sometimes checks out this board.  :-)  "Have you driven a Phrog, lately?"

[whatevah]

Gotta love the interwebs to bring out the 5 year old in us all.  Thread Locked.