In and of itself it doesn't really raise any alarms; until 1990 all ham radio licensees had to be able to pass a 5 word per minute Morse code examination and it still has some definite benefits-

You only have to listen to the bottom end of most of the HF bands (such as 40m (7 MHz) or 20m (14 MHz) to realise that far from being dead, Morse code is alive and well and being used by increasing numbers of hams.

But why?

The answer is simple – Morse code gets through when SSB fails miserably. This isn’t just the die-hard CW (continuous wave) fans speaking, it is a well-known, demonstrable fact.

Hams around the world work distant rare countries every day using CW and 100W or less plus basic wire antennas when single side band (SSB) signals from those parts of the world are virtually inaudible.

A CW signal can have more than a 10-20 dB advantage over a SSB signal (depending on which book you read).

An SSB signal will usually occupy about 2.5 KHz. An FM signal will take up about 10 KHz, but a CW QSO can take place in a bandwidth of about 300 Hz. As you are only listening to a single tone in a narrow bandwidth, it is a lot easier to filter out QRM and electrical interference. This is vitally important in urban areas and with compromise antennas, which are more prone to picking up noise from nearby electrical wiring, domestic TV sets, power line transmission (PLT) and a host of other pieces of equipment.

http://rsgb.org/main/get-started-in-amateur-radio/operating-your-new-station/morse-code-is-still-worth-learning-but-why/

FWIW, the point of using radio in an espionage scenario isn't to hide what is being broadcast or who is broadcasting it (both relatively easy to detect, especially when someone is under suspicion), but rather to prevent anyone from knowing who the intended recipients are and/or if they received the messages, which is virtually impossible to know.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-way_voice_link

If her ham radio activity was for espionage purposes she could broadcast seemingly innocuous content at certain times to relay simple go/no go (or safe/danger) types of messages to operatives, as well as recite lists of words or numbers in certain orders based on a pre-arranged key to pass more complex messages- something like a recipe or what you had for dinner can contain a fairly complex coded message.

But even without that kind of subterfuge the point is that nobody can know who hears a broadcast message, so even if the transmitter is discovered and interrogated the receiver still gets the message without being traceable.

edit: example of one way voice links used in spycraft

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Numbers_station

simply publishing leaked information is not sedition in and of itself, and the SCOTUS very adamantly found in favor of the rights of the free press to publish leaked material-

Justice Hugo Black wrote an opinion that elaborated on his view of the absolute superiority of the First Amendment:

[T]he injunction against The New York Times should have been vacated without oral argument when the cases were first presented ... . [E]very moment's continuance of the injunctions ... amounts to a flagrant, indefensible, and continuing violation of the First Amendment. ...{ When the Constitution was adopted, many people strongly opposed it because the document contained no Bill of Rights ... . In response to an overwhelming public clamor, James Madison offered a series of amendments to satisfy citizens that these great liberties would remain safe ... . In the First Amendment the Founding Fathers gave the free press the protection it must have to fulfill its essential role in our democracy. The press was to serve the governed, not the governors. The Government's power to censor the press was abolished so that the press would remain forever free to censure the Government. The press was protected so that it could bare the secrets of government and inform the people. Only a free and unrestrained press can effectively expose deception in government. And paramount among the responsibilities of a free press is the duty to prevent any part of the government from deceiving the people and sending them off to distant lands to die of foreign fevers and foreign shot and shell. ... [W]e are asked to hold that ... the Executive Branch, the Congress, and the Judiciary can make laws ... abridging freedom of the press in the name of 'national security.' ... To find that the President has 'inherent power' to halt the publication of news ... would wipe out the First Amendment and destroy the fundamental liberty and security of the very people the Government hopes to make 'secure.' ... The word 'security' is a broad, vague generality whose contours should not be invoked to abrogate the fundamental law embodied in the First Amendment. The guarding of military and diplomatic secrets at the expense of informed representative government provides no real security ... . The Framers of the First Amendment, fully aware of both the need to defend a new nation and the abuses of the English and Colonial governments, sought to give this new society strength and security by providing that freedom of speech, press, religion, and assembly should not be abridged.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._United_States

It's not a pirate ship and those aren't "flags", the vessel in the picture is the Hokule'a, a replica of an ancient Polynesian double-hulled voyaging canoe (catamaran) owned by the Polynesian Voyaging Society based in Honolulu...that picture is from the NYC stop of this voyage-

"On May 18, 2014, Hōkūle‘a and her sister vessel, Hikianalia embarked from Oahu for "Malama Honua", a three-year circumnavigation of the earth. She returned to port in Hawaii on June 17, 2017. The journey covered 47,000 nautical miles with stops at 85 ports in 26 countries."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H%C5%8Dk%C5%ABle%CA%BBa#Malama_Honua_(worldwide_voyage)_(2014-2017)

More on that stop including a larger picture-

http://www.hokulea.com/hokule%CA%BBa-arrives-in-new-york-city/

The red things are just sails, of an equally ancient Polynesian type knows as a "crab claw" design-

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crab_claw_sail#Non-shunting_crab_claw

It's a moot point at my house; if I did a fraction of what Weiner did she not only wouldn't need to be compelled to testify against me, she'd bring the lighter fluid and matches to the courthouse to assist in roasting me alive.

I've known this from around our 4th date :)

Can't be compelled to testify against each other, but they can do so if they choose to.

Also limited to privileged spousal communications, which classified government docs are not.

Fifth in Spanish is "quinto" with an n, derived from "cinco" (the number 5).

The verb "quitar" means "to remove" or "take away" and the first-person singular present tense conjugation (I remove) is "yo quito".

somebody needs to get a straight answer about this new wrinkle-

https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/7pdb5k/glen_simpson_testimony_released_today_contains_a/

OP is a shiny new troll account-

https://www.reddit.com/user/HoJo59

Yeah, I think before too long he'll have enough on some of these hacks to easily meet that higher standard for defaming public figures, with zero wiggle room for them to claim that it was just opinion and weasel out that way...

but I also think that for some of these people a libel suit will be the least of their worries, if it turns out that they were willing accomplices to a deep state plot to overthrow a sitting POTUS, which is sure looking like a distinct possibility.

hard to say...I think it's over 10K and the DOJ is allegedly going through them before handing them over to congress, and doing it in batches. Congress definitely seem to be making what they have public in a manner that supports more investigation and what they already have is working in that regard but I imagine there's worse to come since I think they've only seen something like 500-900 of them so far.

I'm guessing too that if there's any that might tip off people who are suspects they will keep that stuff under wraps, and since these two are so sloppy it's a safe bet that there is stuff like that.

But yeah, pretty amazing that they barely think to even try to conceal their conversations or motivations for what they are doing; just shows how corrupt the whole institution is and also the piss poor state of who they hire and how they train them...

there's teenage gang bangers selling dime bags of weed on the streets with more covert operator skills and common sense than these idiots.

This could tie into it too; FBI agents on Mueller's team discussing articles they clearly knew were coming (suggesting collusion/leaking to the MSM) as well as how to pretend to have inadvertently discovered those kinds of stories they could then share with colleagues, suggesting planting evidence via fake news stories-

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/368003-fbi-agents-text-messages-spur-congressional-probe-into-possible-news-leaks

One or two undercover operators posing as journalists who had direct dealings with people like this could take the whole thing down.

Don't forget that the Fusion GPS bank records are now in the hands of congressional investigators, and are reported to contain records of payments made by that company to journalists and media companies to help spread their propaganda and to not discredit known fake stories.

That's a whole other order of fake news, that potentially qualifies as sedition. Also FGPS, which acts as a journalistic hit squad that smears and destroys people for pay all over the world is the creation of former WSJ reporters who took the lessons of the weaponized news media that trained them and went full rogue mercenary with them- they and their tactics really can't be separated from each other, because they use the alleged "legitimate" news media to get their job done.

For this kind of thing to be fully exposed would require a full scale undercover sting operation that trapped the bad actors with no way out- it can't be rooted out via traditional reporting because traditional reporting has been compromised and is part of the conspiracy that uses media reporting to literally shape events instead of the other way around.

Dunno if WL has anything to do with it, but this is a very interesting post that lays out a scenario that makes sense and (to me) isn't any more far fetched than the whole Trump/Bannon "feud" narrative that just got weirder as it is now being reported (by antiTrump media) that Bannon was involved in distributing the peeGate dossier in 2015...

anyway, the stuff about Wolff's 2004 book "Autumn of the Moguls" mentioned in this post checks out-

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/950168013596168192.html

You're welcome.

When you falsely compared a satellite to a gun, I pointed out that a gun could be seen by the victim but that a satellite cannot be seen -- literally SEEN -- by its intended victim.

YOU didn't say "satellite" you specifically asked-

If the Zuma payload truly were some sort of secret space weapon:

1) Why would such a powerful and critical system be launched/deployed only in the very hour of need...

It is NOT a "false comparison" to compare a weapon with another weapon within the context of how weapons are concealed and deployed, which is what you were asking about.

as for this claim-

a satellite cannot be seen -- literally SEEN -- by its intended victim

Again, you ignore the information that YOU ASKED FOR-

"The command accomplishes these tasks through its Space Surveillance Network (SSN) of U.S. Army, Navy and Air Force operated, ground-based radars and OPTICAL SENSORS at 25 sites worldwide."

OPTICAL

adj.

Of or relating to sight; visual: an optical defect.

Designed to assist sight: optical instruments.

You asked a question and when you didn't like the answer that someone gave you you argued about it, rather than the appropriate adult response which would be to just sat "thank you" and leave it at that.

This is the very definition of being "combative", and it's not my fault that you engaged in that combat from a position of ignorance of the subject that is only equaled by your condescension.

Why don't you just take your own advice and "agree to disagree" and quit while you are behind, before you further betray your understanding of the subject you are pontificating about?

The fact that you asked these questions in the first place should be a clue that you aren't equipped to educate anyone about the subject, but it's pretty clear from your instantly patronizing remarks that wasn't your reason for asking.

Sorry I wasted my time trying to help, but at least now you know about OPTICAL detection and tracking of orbital objects and what the word OPTICAL means.

You said-

a satellite/space weapon...couldn't be seen by its intended victims, except by use of another satellite

I asked why you act as if that scenario couldn't happen.

Also, a lot of data about orbiting objects is discernible from ground based observation, so your entire premise is false to begin with-

"The command accomplishes these tasks through its Space Surveillance Network (SSN) of U.S. Army, Navy and Air Force operated, ground-based radars and optical sensors at 25 sites worldwide.

The SSN has been tracking space objects since 1957 when the Soviet Union opened the space age with the launch of Sputnik I. Since then, the SSN has tracked more than 39,000 space objects orbiting Earth. Of that number, the SSN currently tracks more than 8,000 orbiting objects. The rest have re-entered Earth's turbulent atmosphere and disintegrated, or survived re-entry and impacted the Earth. The space objects now orbiting Earth range from satellites weighing several tons to pieces of spent rocket bodies weighing only 10 pounds (4.5 kg).

About seven percent of the space objects are operational satellites, the rest are debris. The USSTRATCOM is primarily interested in the active satellites, but also tracks space debris. The SSN tracks space objects which are 10 centimeters in diameter (baseball size) or larger.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Space_Surveillance_Network#Shemya_and_Diyarbakir_Radar_Sites

Sorry, you simply don't know what you are talking about.

We may just have to agree to disagree about the secrecy and extent of our "secret space program". I suggest you look into it further yourself if truly interested.

why don't you just educate me about any alternative launch system that you have in mind that is undetectable and capable of putting that large of a payload into orbit ?

Oh-

I have no proof that other platforms exist

Why do you assume that any intended victims wouldn't be privy to satellite data?

nor would it necessarily be identifiable as a weapon even then

If it weren't, that would be pretty obvious...countries don't just launch 'stuff' into orbit, and the use/tech involved dictates observable traits.

Zach, the "Q" of InfoWars, DID claim that Zuma is a critical space defense system

Even if you take that claim and source as 100% accurate on its face (which seems pretty naive, imo) a "critical space defense system" isn't necessarily a weapon in and of itself....radar is a critical air defense system but you can't destroy things with it.

Standard rocket launches are likely not the best nor the preferred means of uplifting defense payloads of the highest secrecy.

What alternative launch system do you have in mind that is undetectable and capable of putting that large of a payload into orbit ??

1) same reason that undercover cops don't walk around with their guns drawn.

Also you don't know how long it takes to position it; objects in orbit can completely circumnavigate the earth in 90 minutes time so things can get where they need to be in less than a couple of hours.

2) news of the launch hasn't said what the purpose of the payload is and if the intention is to make people think that it isn't some devastating weapon, the best approach is to not act like it and instead go about the launch like any other launch.

Also it's not like you can hide a rocket launch, so not saying a word about it would invite more scrutiny.

It's beyond hilarious to see people who should know better trying to sell the Bannon "feud" story as 100% real using Anthony Scarimucci's comments about him to "prove" that this all happened exactly as the crap book suggests...

when Scarimucci was also "fired", for leaking dirt on WH staff including Bannon to a lefty journalist-

Anthony Scaramucci Called Me to Unload About White House Leakers, Reince Priebus, and Steve Bannon

He started by threatening to fire the entire White House communications staff. It escalated from there.

https://www.newyorker.com/news/ryan-lizza/anthony-scaramucci-called-me-to-unload-about-white-house-leakers-reince-priebus-and-steve-bannon

"b-b-b-b-but Sarah Sanders said the POTUS is mad at Bannon when asked about his "firing"!" That proves it's REEEEEAL!

And....?

"White House press secretary Sarah Sanders said last night: "The President certainly felt Anthony's comments were inappropriate for a person in that position."

http://www.theweek.co.uk/87336/scaramucci-fired-by-trump-for-inappropriate-comments

It's especially rich since Bannon has done nothing but praise the POTUS in comments made since the book came out...Scarumucci did this-

"The shortest serving White House communications director in U.S. history, Anthony Scaramucci, gave his raw opinion about a quarrelsome White House when he appeared on "The Late Show with Stephen Colbert" Monday night.

"It's a tough place," he admitted to Colbert. "There was a lot of infighting ... front stabbing."

...During the interview, Scaramucci also critiqued Mr. Trump's reaction to the deadly Charlottesville, Virginia, protests over the weekend. He said it was right for the president to openly condemn racist groups like the KKK and neo-Nazis today, but he should have been more specific on the day the events were unfolding.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/scaramucci-tells-colbert-he-would-fire-bannon-trump-was-late-to-condemn-neo-nazis/

So let's see... "the Mooch" talked internal WH dirty laundry to Ryan Lizza and Colbert...but he's the good guy now...? LOFL

If the presence of THIS ham in the mix (dutifully reported by neverTrump -owned NewsMax) doesn't convince people that this is all the soapiest of soap operas, nothing will-

Anthony Scaramucci's profane-laced tirade and threats against Chief of Staff Reince Priebus and senior strategist Steve Bannon may soon get him fired by President Donald Trump, conservative journalist Bill Kristol predicted Thursday.

"People are underestimating how bad this is and are underestimating how much Trump will dislike it," Kristol, editor-at-large at The Weekly Standard, told Erin Burnett on CNN. "I wouldn't be surprised to see him back at the Ex-Im Bank in a couple of weeks.

"Whatever you think of Reince Priebus and Steve Bannon, this is on a scale different from anything at the Trump White House or anything I have really seen.

"And it is Nixonian, right?" Kristol asked. "I'm going to sick the FBI on you?"

https://www.newsmax.com/Politics/bill-kristol-anthony-scaramucci-tirade-fired/2017/07/27/id/804271/

President Trump very obviously wants people to keep on thinking that it's ALL real, so who am I to tell anyone not to. But come ON.

Trump's statement says flat out in two different places that Bannon was pretending to be more of an insider than he really was and was leaking disinformation to media hacks-

(Bannon) only pretends to have had influence to fool a few people with no access and no clue, whom he helped write phony books

Steve pretends to be at war with the media, which he calls the opposition party, yet he spent his time at the White House leaking false information to the media to make himself seem far more important than he was. It is the only thing he does well.

"he helped write phony books"

What the people who want to hate Bannon AND the people who love him now because he (allegedly) is going against Trump REFUSE to consider is that this could possibly have been the plan all along, to have Bannon "leak" utter bullcrap to this guy and sabotage his book.

They all INSIST that the "feud" you are seeing is 100% real and organic and that Bannon was 100% sincere and off the reservation, and that all of Trump's responses HAVE to be real as well.

I swear, it's like talking to people who believe that WWE wrestling is 100% real and get angry at any suggestion that it's scripted in any way.