It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


FEMA and the Galveston West End Cover up

page: 33
<< 30  31  32    34 >>

log in


posted on Sep, 20 2008 @ 12:52 PM

Originally posted by JustMike
Just as a matter of interest, the designated point of contact in the original NOTAM (8/8038) is given as "ARGUS1". (All the NOTAMS have a point of contact cited at the end, along with the authorizing par.) Out of curiosity I did a google search for "argus1" and the first one listed is this link:

If you click on "Homepage", "About Us", "FAQ" or "Contact", you go Rnowhere. It stays on this page with its classic "Lorem ipsum" text. In other words, the site is basically a dummy. That logon page might lead somewhere if you have a password, but as I don't then I can't surmise further.

[edit on 20/9/08 by JustMike]

Per uses Swedish mailserver (see associated domains listed at end of link). (edited to add the following):

Whois Output for:

Domain Name Owner:
5th Quadrant Services
2904 Mons Ave
Rosenberg, TX 77471

Your post re: CFR provisions and FAA restrictions totally intrigues. Will dig and hopefully have something in next couple of hours.

Regarding the issuance under CFR...(2) so early in the day, depending on size of eye, news crews traditionally send out choppers during eye's landfall to "assess" damage that's already occurred ("breaking news/live coverage/exclusive footage" media movement). Seeing as how 911 and 311 in Galveston had received 100s of calls for rescue prior to and during first portion of Ike's landfall, SAR teams may have wanted to ensure that no choppers besides theirs would be out during eye so as to maximize potential for rescue ops (brevity of "eye" window still a factor, but SAR willing to take more risks).

Additionally, CFR...(2) could've been issued based solely on gas leaks: before eye had passed over Galveston, surge was already impacting refineries and Ship Channel. It's possible this was a preemptive measure taken by government on a Friday afternoon prior to market's close to thwart media leaks of damage to gas/oil sector (see above re: media flyovers during eye).

While I agree the Argus1 contact stands in stark contrast to the "norm" of having FAA listed, I tend to think that people are hyping the UTMB bio-lab's danger to the island. While there's of a course a chance that pathogens "escaped" containment and the gov't locked down the island as a direct result, there's a far greater chance that the lockdown resulted from governmental attempts to control the oil sector so as not to incite public panic over the weekend (especially considering AIG's bailout, etc. that had just occurred).

[edit on 20-9-2008 by bulgari20]

[edit on 20-9-2008 by bulgari20]

posted on Sep, 20 2008 @ 01:23 PM
I am obviously a moron when it comes to editing/posting.

Whois info on links to a "5th Quadrant Services" based out of Rosenberg, TX. Search on 5th QS provides bio on managing partner of company, Bob Burns, pertinent portion follows: "During his 7-year term of service in the USAF, he held a Top Secret EBI clearance, and was granted SSIR and SIOP ESI access . . .He holds a Multiengine Commercial Pilot License with an Instrument Rating, Past Certified Flight Instructor license and Advanced Ground Instructor license."

5th QS originally "founded as a healthcare information systems consulting practice" in 1982 (then DBA as Bob Burns and Associates).

Not sure what exactly this adds. Maybe he has an exclusive contract with Galveston; maybe he and the mayor are lovers; maybe he and the city manager are in cahoots; etc. But 5th QS does boast some fairly prestigious clientele (per homepage).

posted on Sep, 20 2008 @ 01:33 PM

Originally posted by bulgari20

Per uses Swedish mailserver (see associated domains listed at end of link).

Yes, I also followed up to try and track ownership of The reference caught me out as well until I realized that is not the same entity as is part of a group of sites run through the Lund University in Sweden, so it makes some sense that it has a Swedish-based server.

However, a search via whois tells us that has a its server in California. The ICANN Registrar shows "Omnis Network, LLC", and the registrant search gives us "5th Quadrant Services" as the owner. An search tells us that is (officially) located in Coppell, TX. And interestingly, the "categories" section on links to the words "Bioterror", "Diagnosis" and "Epidemic".

So, although as you say the UTMB's bio-lab may have been over-hyped by some, it still is interesting that the contact for that original NOTAM -- but no subsequent ones that replaced it -- was "ARGUS1". It's also possible that the "ARGUS1" referred to in the NOTAM is quite a different entity from the mentioned above, and the fact that is located in Texas and is connected to "Public Health Syndromic and Disease Surveillance" may be purely coincidental.

I don't know. Like I say, I'm just sharing what I find.

What you say about the govt's concerns makes very good sense to me as an outsider (read "non-American") looking in.


Edited for typos.

[edit on 20/9/08 by JustMike]

posted on Sep, 20 2008 @ 01:36 PM
reply to post by bulgari20

Hey, the joys of posting on a website! While I was writing my last post you were editing yours
At least we both got the same info eventually. Nice work to dig that stuff on Mr Burns in your next post.

Makes me wonder if is the ARGUS1 referred to in that NOTAM, doesn't it? And if so, what is really going on?

posted on Sep, 20 2008 @ 01:47 PM

Originally posted by JustMike

Originally posted by bulgari20

Per uses Swedish mailserver (see associated domains listed at end of link).

Yes, I also followed up to try and track ownership of The reference caught me out as well until I realized that is not the same entity as is part of a group of sites run through the Lund University in Sweden, so it makes some sense that it has a Swedish-based server.

But, bottom of entry for shows the following (in nice table-form on actual site):

hostnames sharing ip with a-records

hostnames beginning with argus1

domains using this as mailserver
(only showing 10 results)

ip:s using ptr to this host

Maybe I'm reading the info incorrectly, but it seems as though they're linked? The italicized domain above is interesting in relation to 5th QS's Burns as well.

I agree on the joys of internet posting - but it's good to know we're both on the same track. I'm from Houston and think that we've got the same Argus1 based on geographical proximity of Rosenberg to Ike's epicenter. Is it possible that Argus1 is Bob Burns' "call sign" or pilot identification? I know little to nothing about FAA regs and pilot behaviors, so that's just a guess. Also, I believe that when referencing CFR...(2) in previous posts, it should've been CFR...(1) (whichever deals with specified hazards).

posted on Sep, 20 2008 @ 02:25 PM
Not sure what to make of that IP connection. The one you cited is Swedish and there's no doubt about that, whereas according to whois,'s IP is I checked it by pasting that number alone into my browser and it took me straight to that "login" page for

Problem is, I'm not an IT geek so I don't know how deep the "wheels within wheels" situation goes vis-a-vis IP's. Maybe another member can help us out. It seems odd that Argus1.qatar would also be on the same IP, for example. So either they've made an error or we are misreading it. (I suspect it's the latter.

About the call sign...There should be a database of them somewhere. Perhaps we have a US-based pilot who could help out on that.

Referring to your note about CFR (2) versus (1). Yes, in relation to the original NOTAM, it was authorized under section 91.137(a)(1), as were all the others until NOTAM 8/8191 on Sept 15, which was under (2).

posted on Sep, 20 2008 @ 02:39 PM
Reference to Argus1 in 2003 Laredo Ordinance further defines role in relation to public health: "WHEREAS, the purpose of the pilot project is to assist physicians and other health care professionals in point-of-care diagnosis and management of patients who are possible or proven victims of biological agents and other infectious diseases; provide platform for syndromic surveillance and reciprocal communications with healthcare agencies, including common lexicon for signs, symptoms, demographics, laboratory and imaging date; provides a common lexicon, platform and connectivity for reciprocal communication among physicians, health departments and other agencies; automated reporting for Argus1 data to health departments, hospitals and other agencies; ongoing tracking and data analysis; compatible with medical records program/hospital systems/syndromic surveillance programs; National Electronic Disease Surveillance System (NEDSS) complaint."

That's alarming and makes me question my original position that people were over-hyping UTMB in Galveston. At the least, it looks like there's a real potential for the government having instituted preliminary measures against possible contamination/outbreak. In my opinion, the term "Argus1" is uncommon enough that the links uncovered thus far between TX companies and their roles in healthcare rise above the level of coincidence.

Further investigation into 5th Quadrant Services yields:

Per 7379 covers "computer related services, not elsewhere classified" including
* Computer consultants
* Data base developers
* Data processing consultants
* Disk and diskette conversion services
* Disk and diskette recertification services
* Requirements analysis, computer hardware
* Tape recertification service

7371 relates to "Establishments primarily engaged in providing computer programming services on a contract or fee basis. Establishments of this industry perform a variety of additional services, such as computer software design and analysis; modifications of custom software; and training in the use of custom software."

So, if the Argus1 contact information relates to 5th Quadrant Services, the latter's EDGAR filing lists them as comp. programmers with an eye to developing databases. This seems to fit almost too well with the Argus1 database listed in the above-referenced Laredo ordinance.

Seriously, am I reading too much into this? I know Texas looks big, but any native Texan will tell you how it's really not (everyone knows everyone + we really view ourselves as our own country).

posted on Sep, 20 2008 @ 03:02 PM
I think we might not be reading too much into this. After all, how many people in the MSM or anywhere else have noticed that "Argus1" contact on the first NOTAM? Darned few I'd reckon. Sometimes it's the little details which get overlooked that are rather important. True, we could be chasing our tails here but what you've found most recently does at least raise suspicions about what's been going on down there round Galveston way, and this is a conspiracy forum, after all...

BTW I've sent you a U2U. Scroll up to the top of your screen and you'll see the "U2U" box lit up. (Info as you're newish here.)


posted on Sep, 20 2008 @ 03:26 PM
See homelandone's website, which is the "first-responder network". Note what it says under "delivery methods":

The Argus1 Diagnosis and Reference Guide is a critical tool that allows front-line healthcare professionals to quickly identify and diagnose illnesses possibly due to bioterrorism. This system provides a quick response to bioterrorism scenarios and early detection of potential disease outbreaks.

If we're reading too much into this then could someone simply explain why "ARGUS1" (rather than the FAA or an affiliated organization) was the contact on the original NOTAM restricting flights in the Galveston region, and also reassure us that this "ARGUS1" has no connection to, or disease outbreaks? Then we'll all be happy.

Thanks. Goodnight all... (It's late here.)


posted on Sep, 20 2008 @ 03:53 PM
Argus1 ==> ==> bottom of page links to Argus1 Systems Corportation (sic) @ ==> Google cache of directly references the Burns Family. So, Argus1 in reference to public health database re: bioterrorism/infectious diseases most definitely corresponds with Bob Burns of 5th Quadrant Services and is a TX based company.

Is it safe to say we've got the "who"? WHY did the NOTAM list Argus1 as point-of-contact? (And, based on Google cache - how could such a sophisticated database as Argus1 seems fall under the administration of a corp such as 5th QS when their own homepage and that of the Burns' family are borderline pre-90s geocities-esque?)

[edit on 20-9-2008 by bulgari20] Sry for seemingly overediting, none of my edits stick and I'm obviously doing something incorrectly.

[edit on 20-9-2008 by bulgari20]

posted on Sep, 20 2008 @ 05:49 PM
Still seems to be a dearth of info about Bolivar and W. Galveston island. Found this dated Thursday.

IMO the worst details are being kept quiet so as to not negatively effect the R’s in the upcoming election.

posted on Sep, 20 2008 @ 06:05 PM
Interesting note....

The University has removed their campus map from their website. I was trying to determine if there were facilities on the West End of Galveston which were part of the research program which may have led to some of the restrictions in the above posts. I will keep digging.

Edit to add: the virtual tour link is down too. These are the only non working links I have found so far on their website.

I was able to find updates posted yesterday on the research animals.

This a compilation

Researchers: Your samples and work are secure and being maintained. We’re here to answer your research questions… Posted: 5:20 p.m., Friday, Sept. 19, mc Back-up power is being maintained in campus research facilities and the prospect of getting back on the power grid is getting better and better. In the meantime, we have had very good success in maintaining the integrity of our research samples. To that end, this message is a reminder to continue this tremendous effort until we are fully back on the grid and to let you know that we are here to answer any questions you may have. Click here for more information.

To all ARC students and staff Posted: 9:10 p.m., Friday, Sept. 19, mc We share your concern about animals you have housed on the UTMB campus. Know that we are caring for them. An expert team of veterinarians, husbandry supervisors and animal technicians, remain onsite at UTMB and every effort is being made to preserve valuable and irreplaceable research animals. Our facilities have already been inspected post-storm by the USDA who were satisfied with our care under these difficult circumstances. Researchers are urged to contact William Masters at 409-370-5879, John Donaho at 281-734-8879 or Mary McCallum at 409-392-1362 with any questions.

Researchers: Your samples and work are secure and being maintained. We’re here to answer your research questions… Posted: 5:20 p.m., Friday, Sept. 19, mc Freezers. Note to researchers on their -80 degree freezers: We want each department to identify a contact individual who can work with the research office to inventory all freezers that are not currently energized on red plugs. We need information on the status of these freezers and to know if there is any space in those freezers that are on emergency power. We will provide space in those freezers for critical samples .E1 personnel should continue to provide dry ice and nitrogen to those freezers not on emergency power. We have identified some freezer space in the Animal Research annex. Joan Nichols is working to open up 6 new -80 freezers in the GNL to accommodate more samples that are in non-emergency freezers. Ventilate. It is also important to make sure that those freezers that are in a small room be properly ventilated so they do not overheat. Prop open the doors to the room and consider turning the freezer temperature to -50 degrees if possible.

It definitely does not look like all "samples" were destroyed - contrary to their lies - I mean claims.

Other information

Search and rescue were reported to be leaving any bodies in the homes and not removing them per a Tyler reporter's post.

I heard a reference today on a MSM that the island will remain closed for another week at least as well.

[edit on 20-9-2008 by DancedWithWolves]

posted on Sep, 20 2008 @ 06:17 PM
reply to post by DancedWithWolves

UTMB is on the east end of the island.

The news today is that residents are going to be let back on the island. There most likely will be some time of restrictions though.

Waiting to see it the 'bodies left in the houses' is anything but a untrue rumor.

posted on Sep, 20 2008 @ 07:28 PM
Some guy over on KHOU forums offered aerial photography services from 500-1000 ft for a fee. These are aerial shots from the West End taken today (9.20.08). Some of the bigger houses look damage-free, older structures not-so-much. Pics that at first look happy and beachy = closer inspection reveals pylons where houses once stood.

If these are accurate (I have no info regarding original poster/photographer), I don't see signs exhibiting the potential for massive loss of life. The Bolivar/Gilchrist pics show that more than any others. So, short of massive loss of life/utter property destruction, why shut down the West End? UTMB is on the Eastern side of the island and I doubt they have a Western side facility... The West End doesn't/didn't have a seawall. Did something get washed out of UTMB and into the W.End? (And no, I don't think the Gulf churned out troves of pirate booty.)

ETA: Does pic 115 look like it has people trying to signal plane (lower rh corner)?

[edit on 20-9-2008 by bulgari20]

posted on Sep, 20 2008 @ 07:30 PM
My friend sent me a video link to a FEMA facility where thousands of "ready caskets" are stored. There is also a cement truck on the property. I live 20 minutes north of New Orleans, 8 miles west of where Katrina made landfall, so the disaster in my small coastal town was not due to levee failure. The destruction here was phenomenal, and even 4 miles inland, I had 6 feet in my home.

President Bush put that area under a "no fly zone" just after the hurricane passed. Looking back at all the coverage Katrina got, I find this highly unusual. You'd think that a team of "rich folks" in the oil & gas industry down there would've banded together by now and flown over anyway. Was the government going to shoot them ALL down?

Even the mayor of the West End of Galveston wouldn't answer any questions at a news conference just after the storm, he hedged everyone, and so has the Mayor of Galveston. I heard that 20,000 people were there and FEMA was supposed to get them out. Somehow, it got too late (FEMA dropping the ball again) and those people were trapped there. I also have read that after Ike passed, FEMA showed up with refrigerated trucks and supplies, and saw no living come to get help from them.

The FEMA "ready casket" storage facility is in Virginia. Since the storm, have they been dropping bodies into them, filling them with cement, and then "losing them at sea?" Well, no one knows because that part of the island has been blocked from everyone. This is unacceptable, and someone should grow some balls and force their way into there before it's too late, and Bush writes off 20,000 deaths to "swept away to sea." Obviously, the location of the island would show them to be battered from storm surge from the Northeast wind for countless hours, which would've indeed, pushed them out to sea. By now, FEMA could've loaded up every dead person and put them on boats, complete with their cement-laden, ready caskets and no one will ever know.

Our media and the neighboring storm areas have truly dropped the ball on this one. They should've forced their way onto that part of the island to see what's REALLY up down there. Like I said, could the government have killed EVERYONE who tried to find out the real truth? There is strength in numbers, don't ever forget that one.

Here is the link to the "ready casket" video:

Here is a link to President Bush's "no fly" order:

Another informative link about Polygard Thermoplastic Caskets (used for burying contaminated bodies) that FEMA has, indeed, purchased:

A great link to how the Feds spend your hard-earned dollars:

And no one was allowed in there while ships cleaned up.
The big thing the past few days is the Federal Buyouts.
Trust me, they are just a diversion for something far more horrific happening in Galveston. If you think the feds wouldn't perform such an atrocity, I don't understand why you are on this site.

Defend New Orleans and now
Defend Galveston, too.
I feel for them all, I've been there.
If I could afford to, I'd be marching right in there in the name of truth and daring them to kill me. The only other place I know of in this country that's "shoot on sight" is Area 51. And it's been that way for decades.
Restricted airspace over Galveston?
I shudder to think what they've done. Bush is capable of anything.
He changed more laws in his term to do his own bidding than ALL other presidents combined. He's done nothing but lie since day 1.

Reviewers please print this. The American people deserve to know what Bush is hiding this time.

posted on Sep, 21 2008 @ 02:52 PM
Don't know if this has been posted yet but it pretty much confirms the coverup, and is very pertinent to this thread:

posted on Sep, 22 2008 @ 12:00 AM
So, the question is... a week after the storm and news coming in.

Even though we have not heard anything about bodies and massive numbers of dead in the west end. Was it good for the government to try and keep PICTURES not news, but pictures and video of dead off the air?

I do think that if there is /was a large number of people that died we as a people need to be informed.

posted on Sep, 22 2008 @ 03:04 AM
reply to post by TrueAmerican

Yes, it's certainly pertinent -- and it's good to have a longer vid that gives a bit more info. Not too sure if the "real" reasons for the restrictions will be known any time soon but at least it's nigh on impossible for anyone to reasonably argue that the MSM were indeed restricted. The evidence presented in this thread now makes that pretty clear.

posted on Sep, 22 2008 @ 06:52 AM
Hi guys,

Sorry I haven't been posting, but just wanted to say thanks for bringing the posts about the ARGUS connection. It's odd to say the least.

posted on Sep, 22 2008 @ 08:30 AM

Originally posted by JustMike Not too sure if the "real" reasons for the restrictions will be known any time soon but at least it's nigh on impossible for anyone to reasonably argue that the MSM were indeed restricted. The evidence presented in this thread now makes that pretty clear.

But further, it intrigues me that there were posts here referring to media and government that quite succinctly admitted to a restriction of the information stream coming out of specific areas...yet there were those in this thread who responded with a Pythonesque "No there isn't."

Would it have played out the same in a non-election year?

Is this the time and the place to engage in politics?

new topics

top topics

<< 30  31  32    34 >>

log in