LightDreams wrote:
I'm afraid that I'm going to respectfully disagree...

I think of the skills required to do high-end I.T. work.  A tremendous problem solving ability, a rigorous adherence to logic with the ability to quickly narrow down and eliminate everything that doesn't actually apply to a specific problem, combined with an openness to everything that may actually be a factor (at least until eliminated), and a constant internal "feed-back loop" of new approaches versus results, etc, until the problem is solved.

I.E.  A scientific mind that is analytical, flexible and very effective at dealing with all kinds of problems and threats.

I just don't buy it.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but it's a field where stubbornly holding on to preconceived ideas, regardless of the evidence, would be absolutely fatal career-wise.

Not too mention all those wild conspiracy theories...

---

Personally, I suspect that the John Southworth listing that I previously found (when researching the chatbot scenario), which was someone who spent the last 10 years as a photographer with Hullcamera (LONG before chatbots got "serious"), sounded much more likely.

But that's just my opinion.

OR:

A "Threat Intelligence Manager" could conceivably be running a chatbot with algorithms to test various response believability scenarios as a research project identifying successful response algorithms for both defense and offense.

In which case, we have seen what fails.

Modelphilia wrote:
Things just got A LOT more interesting!

We aren't exactly dealing with an amateur here
      –excepting with respect to his photographic "skills" of course.

Anyone care to have some fun digging a little deeper into dear old Southy?

https://uk.linkedin.com › in › john-southworth-0325b946
John Southworth - Kingston upon Hull, England Metropolitan Area ...
View John Southworth's profile on LinkedIn, the world's largest professional community. ... Kingston upon Hull, England Metropolitan Area. Join to connect University of Hull. Report this profile Report Report. Back Submit. Education ... Threat Intelligence Manager at PwC UK United Kingdom. John Southworth ...

https://www.pwc.com › gx › en › issues › cybersecurity › cyber-threat-intelligence.html
Cyber threat intelligence - PwC
At PwC, we're a community of solvers — powered by technology — committed to helping you protect everyone, and everything, you care about. Our threat intelligence is here to get you future ready. Preparing for tomorrow As your company develops its threat intelligence maturity, we're here to help.

https://ninjajobs.org › job › 93ab2fb57f4a72c9fb53c8a9ee80f0d32e92b05e9d
Threat intelligence / malware analyst : PwC - NinjaJobs
As an analyst within PwC's Global Threat Intelligence practice you'll delve into threat actor campaigns and incident response cases relevant to PwC's vast client base which spans more than 150 countries and ranges from NGOs to the world's largest corporations. You'll develop a deep understanding of the tools and techniques used by ...

https://www.linkedin.com › jobs › view › global-threat-intelligence-developer-at-pwc-uk-3387204557
PwC UK hiring Global Threat Intelligence Developer in Manchester ...
PwC UK Manchester, England, United Kingdom. Apply Join or sign in to find your next job. Join to apply for the Global Threat Intelligence Developer role at PwC UK.

Oh, Hi Johnny-Boy! How ya doin' kid?

Here's the 'real' JSouthworth:

https://purpleport.com/portfolio/jsouthworth

https://twitter.com/JohnSou74706125

I think you'll easily recognise him. His twitter amply demonstrates his nature and stupidity; riddled with vile and baseless statements, opinion and invective, oh and conspiracy theories.

You may more easily see Libby Squire's poor mum plead with him to stop in her replies to Southy's incessant tweets about her murdered daughter here:

https://twitter.com/lisasquire7/with_replies

Guys, he's the real McCoy. It's not often you'll find one alive and kicking in the wild.

P R E S T O N wrote:
Here's the 'real' JSouthworth:

https://purpleport.com/portfolio/jsouthworth
...

Guys, he's the real McCoy. It's not often you'll find one alive and kicking in the wild.

Thank-you for that.  I'd also note that Purpleport lists him as being 59 years old.

Certainly not the John Southworth shown in the PwC UK Security Analyst photo.

LightDreams wrote:

Thank-you for that.  I'd also note that Purpleport lists him as being 59 years old.

Certainly not the John Southworth shown in the PwC UK Security Analyst photo.

Nope, that's not him.

He might have lied about his age on Purpleport, but based on the photos I've seen of Southy late 50s to mid/late 60s is about right.

LightDreams wrote:
I'm afraid that I'm going to respectfully disagree...
---

Personally, I suspect that the John Southworth listing that I previously found (when researching the chatbot scenario), which was someone who spent the last 10 years as a photographer with Hullcamera (LONG before chatbots got "serious"), sounded much more likely.

P R E S T O N wrote:
Guys, he's the real McCoy. It's not often you'll find one alive and kicking in the wild.

LightDreams wrote:
Thank-you for that.  I'd also note that Purpleport lists him as being 59 years old.

Certainly not the John Southworth shown in the PwC UK Security Analyst photo.

P R E S T O N wrote:
He might have lied about his age on Purpleport, but based on the photos I've seen of Southy late 50s to mid/late 60s is about right.

Thanks for all of your sleuthing and reasoning guys, and for resolving the major questions. You both had a lot more information than I did when imagining possible scenarios.

As for Southy's age, he signed up for Purpleport eight years ago, and may have never changed his profile. Thus, he could now be 67 years old, taking his declared age as true back then. I'm still not sure though (LD) what his age has to do with his cut-and-paste WW-II-information posts. Even at sixty-seven he would still be way too young to have been alive then although, like many a few years older than him, he could have fixated on that period in history.

I'm satisfied that you have outed him though, Preston, so thanks for the legwork. At least no one need answer him ever again.

The question for the future though is whether any of this will convince the old boy to "put a cork in it".

Bets? ...Bets?

Modelphilia wrote:
Thanks for all of your sleuthing and reasoning guys, and for resolving the major questions. You both had a lot more information than I did when imagining possible scenarios.

As for Southy's age, he signed up for Purpleport eight years ago, and may have never changed his profile. Thus, he could now be 67 years old, taking his declared age as true back then. I'm still not sure though (LD) what his age has to do with his cut-and-paste WW-II-information posts. Even at sixty-seven he would still be way too young to have been alive then although, like many a few years older than him, he could have fixated on that period in history.

I'm satisfied that you have outed him though, Preston, so thanks for the legwork. At least no one need answer him ever again.

The question for the future though is whether any of this will convince the old boy to "put a cork in it".

Bets? ...Bets?

I'm afraid I can't take the credit for sleuthing since Southy outed himself by sending me threatening messages on Purpleport - so absolutely no sleuthing effort was expended by me. Why he'd choose to send me threatening messages over there though, rather than on MM, is a mystery to me.

As to bets - it wouldn't be fair of me to place one as I've already seen Southy's performances on other modelling sites, and hence I already know how this will pan out. Suffice to say that you ain't seen nothin' yet!

Have fun

P R E S T O N wrote:

Nope, that's not him.

He might have lied about his age on Purpleport, but based on the photos I've seen of Southy late 50s to mid/late 60s is about right.

Of the two of us, I'm the one who can use his real name on internet websites. You have profiles under different names on PurplePort, Twitter and a couple of other sites.

JSouthworth wrote:

Of the two of us, I'm the one who can use his real name on internet websites. You have profiles under different names on PurplePort, Twitter and a couple of other sites.

Hey, dumbo, my real name is Preston. But shhhh, don't tell anybody.

Twonk.

JSouthworth wrote:
Proof here that members of the RMT rail union are supporting Russia's invasion of Ukraine;

https://www.stopwar.org.uk/article/thou … n-ukraine/

Proof? You don't know the meaning of the word. The link YOU provided shows a demonstration with marchers holding a banner which CLEARLY reads: "NO TO THE RUSSIAN INVASION". Oh, and contrary to one of your previous ravings, there isnt a SINGLE poster of Marx, Mao, or Putin.

JSouthworth wrote:
The recent, apparently intentional destruction of a USAF reconnaissance drone by a Russian fighter in a ramming attack over the Black Sea may have some positive outcomes if it encourages the US military to at least think about providing it's unmanned aircraft with air to air combat capability.

What probably happened is that the Russian fighter positioned it's wingtip under that of the drone and then flipped it over. A possible countermove would be to suddenly steer into the fighter and slide over it, crushing the cockpit canopy and destroying the tailfins for a certain kill. The nose radome is another weak point on the fighter, like the canopy it is only strong enough to withstand bird strikes.

"What probably happened is..." 

You have NO IDEA what happened.

" A possible countermove would be ..."

You're a drone tactics expert, now?  Wow, is there ANYTHING you don't feel qualified to pontificate upon?

JSouthworth wrote:
The recent, apparently intentional destruction of a USAF reconnaissance drone by a Russian fighter in a ramming attack over the Black Sea may have some positive outcomes if it encourages the US military to at least think about providing it's unmanned aircraft with air to air combat capability.

What probably happened is that the Russian fighter positioned it's wingtip under that of the drone and then flipped it over. A possible countermove would be to suddenly steer into the fighter and slide over it, crushing the cockpit canopy and destroying the tailfins for a certain kill. The nose radome is another weak point on the fighter, like the canopy it is only strong enough to withstand bird strikes.

One would think it would be incredibly difficult to "crush the cockpit canopy" of an aircraft that doesn't have an onboard cockpit but uses a ground control station for its pilots, but keep on demonstrating your ability to try and bullshit your way through any topic while exposing your ignorance when you have absolutely no knowledge of what actually happened.

JSouthworth wrote:
What probably happened is that the Russian fighter positioned it's wingtip under that of the drone and then flipped it over. A possible countermove would be to suddenly steer into the fighter and slide over it, crushing the cockpit canopy and destroying the tailfins for a certain kill. The nose radome is another weak point on the fighter, like the canopy it is only strong enough to withstand bird strikes.

What probably happened is that the Russian fighter positioned it's wingtip under that of the drone and then flipped it over.

Hey Southy, that notion (as well as the rest of the paragraph which contains it) is beyond stupid.

The Russian pilot either lost control and careered into the back of the drone or, more likely, the drone operator attempted evasive manoeuvres which took the drone into the path of the Russian pilot who was unable to avoid it due to his poor flying skills and/or poor judgement about the capabilities of his aircraft. In other words, the Russian pilot's stupidity came within a whisker of getting him killed - Darwin will get him next time.

JQuest wrote:
Even though video footage of the actual encounter has now been released and plainly shows the Russian running into the back of the drone while trying to dump jet fuel on it. I fully expect JSouthworth will enlighten us as to how that isn’t really what happened and will double down on his imaginary cockpit crushing theory.

Basically, the Russian pilots were trying to down the drone without firing at it, and on this occasion they were successful, but two can play at that game.

JSouthworth wrote:
Most of the media seem to have overlooked the significance of a recent  statement by Dmitry Medvedev, that Russian forces would "fight to the Polish border". The first official statement to the effect that the Russian objective in Ukraine is to invade and occupy the whole country.

To quote Biden recently - "we have significant intelligence capability", and the UK is part of that. Thank god, otherwise we might have to rely on the opinions of ignorant people like you who are easily influenced by propaganda.

JSouthworth wrote:
Basically, the Russian pilots were trying to down the drone without firing at it, and on this occasion they were successful, but two can play at that game.

JSouthworth wrote:
If a small, shoulder-launched missile can destroy a manned fighter, so can a small drone, or unmanned combat aircraft. The impact of a 250 kg jet propelled drone would potentially cause catastrophic damage even at a closing speed of less than 100 knots, particularly if it occurred on a vulnerable part of the aircraft such as the cockpit canopy, the nose radome, or the tailfins or the jet nozzles at the rear of the aircraft.

JQuest wrote:

You're a funny guy, really very funny indeed. Maybe not as funny as you think you are, but then who is.

If the potential effectiveness of drones in air-to-air combat is obvious, so is the fact that many people in NATO air forces are opposed to this idea. But in the end, they're going to have to get used to it.

JSouthworth wrote:
If the potential effectiveness of drones in air-to-air combat is obvious, so is the fact that many people in NATO air forces are opposed to this idea. But in the end, they're going to have to get used to it.

I wouldn't exactly call accidentally flying a multi-million dollar fighter jet into the back of an unarmed drone air to air combat but you are the self appointed expert on all of these threads.

You know what's really funny? You actually believing that you know more than experts at NATO do, and are actually coming up with ideas all on your own that you think they haven't thought of yet. Now that's truly funny, also really pitiful and sad at the same time.

Pontificate on Captain Obvious, or should it be more aptly, Captain Oblivious?

JSouthworth wrote:
You're a funny guy, really very funny indeed. Maybe not as funny as you think you are, but then who is.

LOL. He's not the comedian, you are.

JQuest wrote:
I wouldn't exactly call accidentally flying a multi-million dollar fighter jet into the back of an unarmed drone air to air combat but you are the self appointed expert on all of these threads.

When drones that are designed for air-to-air combat enter service, they will clear the skies of manned fighter aircraft in no time. The biggest advantage of the drone is that it can be churned out on production lines whereas it takes five years to train a fast jet pilot to a high standard.

A drone which costs a few hundred thousand dollars or less, can routinely be used in a sacrificial way if it destroys a manned fighter costing over US $100 million, or some other high priority military target. It is more expendable than a manned aircraft and particularly the pilot of that aircraft. Although as we know, this did not prevent Japanese pilots from deliberately crashing Allied ships and aircraft during the final year of WW2.

In a defensive air-to-air scenario in which a drone is attacked by a manned fighter, a "mutual kill" resulting from a mid-air collision represents a very favorable exchange in military terms, even if the drone costs several million dollars.

In the recent incident over the Black Sea involving the MQ9 Reaper drone, the Russian fighters were however able to down the drone without loss because it was designed primarily for endurance rather than maneuverability in air-to-air combat.

JSouthworth wrote:
When drones that are designed for air-to-air combat enter service, they will clear the skies of manned fighter aircraft in no time. The biggest advantage of the drone is that it can be churned out on production lines whereas it takes five years to train a fast jet pilot to a high standard.

A drone which costs a few hundred thousand dollars or less, can routinely be used in a sacrificial way if it destroys a manned fighter costing over US $100 million, or some other high priority military target. It is more expendable than a manned aircraft and particularly the pilot of that aircraft. Although as we know, this did not prevent Japanese pilots from deliberately crashing Allied ships and aircraft during the final year of WW2.

In a defensive air-to-air scenario in which a drone is attacked by a manned fighter, a "mutual kill" resulting from a mid-air collision represents a very favorable exchange in military terms, even if the drone costs several million dollars.

In the recent incident over the Black Sea involving the MQ9 Reaper drone, the Russian fighters were however able to down the drone without loss because it was designed primarily for endurance rather than maneuverability in air-to-air combat.

You know I see the words on the page but all that comes through is, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. No one here cares what you have to say, we're only responding to the complete inanity of your assertions. Additionally your completely made up review of UAV's  is as off topic (as usual) as it is useless. There can be little doubt that every time someone reads one of your posts they walk away dumber than when they arrived, but it's like a continuing, on going, slow motion, train wreck, you just can't look away.

My dear old dad was a smart guy, he used to say , "it's often a good idea to keep your mouth shut and let people think you know more about stuff than you do, than to open it and prove you're a dumb ass." I wonder which part of that saying he would apply to you? (No answer required the question is rhetorical) For the last time, the Russians were able to crash the MQ-9 because they accidentally ran into it, not because it was designed for endurance. It's like talking to a damn wall.

JSouthworth wrote:

When drones that are designed for air-to-air combat enter service, they will clear the skies of manned fighter aircraft in no time. The biggest advantage of the drone is that it can be churned out on production lines whereas it takes five years to train a fast jet pilot to a high standard.

A drone which costs a few hundred thousand dollars or less, can routinely be used in a sacrificial way if it destroys a manned fighter costing over US $100 million, or some other high priority military target. It is more expendable than a manned aircraft and particularly the pilot of that aircraft. Although as we know, this did not prevent Japanese pilots from deliberately crashing Allied ships and aircraft during the final year of WW2.

In a defensive air-to-air scenario in which a drone is attacked by a manned fighter, a "mutual kill" resulting from a mid-air collision represents a very favorable exchange in military terms, even if the drone costs several million dollars.

In the recent incident over the Black Sea involving the MQ9 Reaper drone, the Russian fighters were however able to down the drone without loss because it was designed primarily for endurance rather than maneuverability in air-to-air combat.

The Boeing X45A can probably be regarded as the first successful purpose designed, autonomous combat drone or UCAV (Unmanned Combat Air Vehicle). The only weapons it carried in testing were bombs but in principle, this unmanned combat aircraft could engage ground and air targets using most types of weapons, as well as carrying out reconnaissance missions.

This article contains more useful information than the Wikipedia one;
https://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/x-45-ucav/

JQuest wrote:
For the last time, the Russians were able to crash the MQ-9 because they accidentally ran into it, not because it was designed for endurance.

So you're saying that Russian president Vladimir Putin personally awarded the pilots their medals for accidentally colliding with a drone? Somehow I don't think so.

JSouthworth wrote:
So you're saying that Russian president Vladimir Putin personally awarded the pilots their medals for accidentally colliding with a drone? Somehow I don't think so.

So YOU are saying in YOUR "mind" Putin is not capable of awarding a faux medal for the purpose of maintaining a faux  cover story. for his own propaganda purposes?

WOW.  Pretty naive and clueless, even for you.

JSouthworth wrote:
The Boeing X45A can probably be regarded as the first successful purpose designed, autonomous combat drone or UCAV (Unmanned Combat Air Vehicle). The only weapons it carried in testing were bombs but in principle, this unmanned combat aircraft could engage ground and air targets using most types of weapons, as well as carrying out reconnaissance missions.

This article contains more useful information than the Wikipedia one;
https://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/x-45-ucav/

You're off topic again Captain, and anyone who wants that information is completely capable of looking it up on their own. You needn't parrot it back at us.

JSouthworth wrote:
So you're saying that Russian president Vladimir Putin personally awarded the pilots their medals for accidentally colliding with a drone? Somehow I don't think so.

Again, no one cares what you think, and no I never said that, I just stated a verifiable fact. Thanks for coming out as a Putin supporter though and pushing his propaganda. Now at least we can all understand why you're taking the position you are.

There you go again!

JSouthworth wrote:

So you're saying that Russian president Vladimir Putin personally awarded the pilots their medals for accidentally colliding with a drone? Somehow I don't think so.

You don't?
Oh well, yet more stupidity from you then. Snores...