[CONTRARlAN]

It's being talked about like this is a new finding, but it's been discussed on various fora for the better part of a decade.

For example:

http://forums.radioreference.com/547816-post2559.html

The author's quip (while simultaneously claiming to "scoop" this):

"These forums were usually conspiracy/paranoia/gun rights types of sites, but maybe they were right this time."

Well, that's helpful.

[LordKano]

Precisely. He found confirmation of something that other people already knew and told him.

The author apparently didn't consider the possibility that those people on the "conspiracy/paranoia/gun rights" sites may have already done the same research that he did.

If one spends enough time in these circles, one can get a pretty good sense of who should be wearing a tinfoil hat, who just seems to be an interested observer and who just might have intelligence service connections.

Separating the wheat from the chaff is often tiresome but some of the people out there know things.

[jjwiseman]

I feel like I documented what I learned from other people and what I discovered myself. Is there something I portrayed inaccurately?

Really, I'm just glad people decided the story of the scope of the FBI aerial surveillance was important enough that they investigated it, and are telling it now. It doesn't matter so much who did it first.

I did enjoy saying I "scooped" AP because for a long time I was unsure whether I had uncovered something real and maybe instead I'd fallen into unreasonable paranoia, and then they came along a month later and confirmed everything I had discovered. But they went far beyond that and did actual reporting, talking to the FBI and digging up documents. I just had an SDR and Google. They're the professionals and did 10x as much work as I did, and got more impressive results.

[jjwiseman]

The post you linked to has 2 planes that it claims are FBI that used JENNA callsigns. That's 2% of the planes that have been discovered, most of which did not use JENNA callsigns and were discovered by other means. That's one tiny part of the story.

> Well, that's helpful

Did I slight your favorite conspiracy/paranoia/gun rights site?

[CONTRARlAN]

> Did I slight your favorite conspiracy/paranoia/gun rights site?

Again, helpful. I have no particular interest in any sites you'd consider one of the above, but nice rhetoric.

I was about to take the time to reply to your first point–which is fair and worth talking about–but the trolling afterwards leads me to believe it's fairly unlikely you're interested in discussing it on its merits.

[mherdeg]

If you're infuriated by "people talking about things like this is a new finding, but it's been well known for years", you'll LOVE the Hillary Clinton private-email-for-work-business story, which was well-documented in 2013 and ignored until March 2015.

[foldor]

The issue isn't that it's old news, the issue is about how smug the author sounds saying he discovered this himself, when he even documented himself proof that others had already discovered this before.

[jjwiseman]

I'm a self-documented jerk! There, see, I did it again!