The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth General => Topic started by: mnofal on July 27, 2014, 12:12:21 AM
-
When USA starts wars in the region they always try all kinds of weapons, for example in wars on Iraq they launched cruise missiles from submarines, they used B2 stealth bombers flying from Whiteman AFB , USA directly.
My question here: Did you ever see USA trying during the war a single ICBM missile with a conventional warhead ?, an ICBM which suppose to go into space in one stage like the peacemaker? You did not see and you will never see. Also Iraqi Scud missiles does never go into space.
-
This probably belongs in the science section.
-
There are no such things as ICBM'S. There are ballistic missiles that can go up to a certain height and fall back to the ground in a arc however many miles away before the fuel is spent.
All this TV stuff where missiles fly horizontally over the sea and land, dodging mountains and what not, then home in on the target, are just that, TV fantasy.
These submarine ballistic missiles are another pile of horse manure. Ejected by air pressure from a tube and suddenly jump out of the water - ignite - and off to the target thousands of miles away. What a crock of jelly beans.
We, as people are kept scared of this stuff. We are made to feel helpless and in fear of all this stuff.
I'm sure the experts will tell me it's all real and above board as their will be some submarine captains on here or nuclear silo operatives, etc that will tell me I'm delusional.
-
There are no such things as ICBM'S. There are ballistic missiles that can go up to a certain height and fall back to the ground in a arc however many miles away before the fuel is spent.
All this TV stuff where missiles fly horizontally over the sea and land, dodging mountains and what not, then home in on the target, are just that, TV fantasy.
These submarine ballistic missiles are another pile of horse manure. Ejected by air pressure from a tube and suddenly jump out of the water - ignite - and off to the target thousands of miles away. What a crock of jelly beans.
We, as people are kept scared of this stuff. We are made to feel helpless and in fear of all this stuff.
I'm sure the experts will tell me it's all real and above board as their will be some submarine captains on here or nuclear silo operatives, etc that will tell me I'm delusional.
This is when a thread should be locked.
-
There are no such things as ICBM'S. There are ballistic missiles that can go up to a certain height and fall back to the ground in a arc however many miles away before the fuel is spent.
All this TV stuff where missiles fly horizontally over the sea and land, dodging mountains and what not, then home in on the target, are just that, TV fantasy.
These submarine ballistic missiles are another pile of horse manure. Ejected by air pressure from a tube and suddenly jump out of the water - ignite - and off to the target thousands of miles away. What a crock of jelly beans.
We, as people are kept scared of this stuff. We are made to feel helpless and in fear of all this stuff.
I'm sure the experts will tell me it's all real and above board as their will be some submarine captains on here or nuclear silo operatives, etc that will tell me I'm delusional.
This is when a thread should be locked.
Why?...because it's closer to the real truth?
-
There are no such things as ICBM'S. There are ballistic missiles that can go up to a certain height and fall back to the ground in a arc however many miles away before the fuel is spent.
All this TV stuff where missiles fly horizontally over the sea and land, dodging mountains and what not, then home in on the target, are just that, TV fantasy.
These submarine ballistic missiles are another pile of horse manure. Ejected by air pressure from a tube and suddenly jump out of the water - ignite - and off to the target thousands of miles away. What a crock of jelly beans.
We, as people are kept scared of this stuff. We are made to feel helpless and in fear of all this stuff.
I'm sure the experts will tell me it's all real and above board as their will be some submarine captains on here or nuclear silo operatives, etc that will tell me I'm delusional.
This is when a thread should be locked.
Why?...because it's closer to the real truth?
Be because it belongs elsewhere and you don't know the difference between a cruise missile and an ICBM.
-
There are no such things as ICBM'S. There are ballistic missiles that can go up to a certain height and fall back to the ground in a arc however many miles away before the fuel is spent.
All this TV stuff where missiles fly horizontally over the sea and land, dodging mountains and what not, then home in on the target, are just that, TV fantasy.
These submarine ballistic missiles are another pile of horse manure. Ejected by air pressure from a tube and suddenly jump out of the water - ignite - and off to the target thousands of miles away. What a crock of jelly beans.
We, as people are kept scared of this stuff. We are made to feel helpless and in fear of all this stuff.
I'm sure the experts will tell me it's all real and above board as their will be some submarine captains on here or nuclear silo operatives, etc that will tell me I'm delusional.
This is when a thread should be locked.
Why?...because it's closer to the real truth?
Be because it belongs elsewhere and you don't know the difference between a cruise missile and an ICBM.
Let me guess.
Is an ICBM a missile that goes super high and arcs all the way to it's target on another continent?
Is a crusise missile , a missile that does the mountain dodging stuff with it's little wings and fuel filled body?
It's what I gathered from TV.
-
Oh wait, I know this one: then you thought about it real hard and realized, "things can't fly like that! It's obviously a lie 'cause denpressure and I had a good think!"
This is when a thread should be locked.
-
Oh wait, I know this one: then you thought about it real hard and realized, "things can't fly like that! It's obviously a lie 'cause denpressure and I had a good think!"
This is when a thread should be locked.
What are you waffling on about?
-
Oh wait, I know this one: then you thought about it real hard and realized, "things can't fly like that! It's obviously a lie 'cause denpressure and I had a good think!"
This is when a thread should be locked.
What are you waffling on about?
What does waffling mean?
-
Oh wait, I know this one: then you thought about it real hard and realized, "things can't fly like that! It's obviously a lie 'cause denpressure and I had a good think!"
This is when a thread should be locked.
What are you waffling on about?
What does waffling mean?
Waffle (speech) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waffle_(speech)CachedSimilar
The term waffle, particularly outside the U.S., denotes language without meaning;
blathering, babbling, droning. One might waffle throughout an essay or a ...
-
These submarine ballistic missiles are another pile of horse manure. Ejected by air pressure from a tube and suddenly jump out of the water - ignite - and off to the target thousands of miles away. What a crock of jelly beans.
I was in the Navy for 15 years. I was stationed on the USS Louisville in the Gulf during Desert Storm. The Louisville was responsible for launching many Tomahawk cruise missiles against Iraq.
But I guess I was just brainwashed into believing I was actually there.
-
These submarine ballistic missiles are another pile of horse manure. Ejected by air pressure from a tube and suddenly jump out of the water - ignite - and off to the target thousands of miles away. What a crock of jelly beans.
I was in the Navy for 15 years. I was stationed on the USS Louisville in the Gulf during Desert Storm. The Louisville was responsible for launching many Tomahawk cruise missiles against Iraq.
But I guess I was just brainwashed into believing I was actually there.
Of course you weren't brainwashed. You're simply not being honest with me.
If you prove me wrong, I will apologise, so lets have some questions about your submarine and these tomahawk missiles.
Try not to look it up on google, as 15 years sub experience should allow you to reel this stuff off in seconds.
First question.
How deep is the hull of your sub from floor to top, excluding the conning tower?
-
My post is directly related to flat earth
Flat earth ==> No rockets go into space (also for violation of physics of propelling against weightless fuel) ===> ICBM are just plain science fiction
-
No idea off the top of my head.
I was a radar operator, I didn't design the sub.
I had three years of sub experience. I was in the Navy for 15 total.
-
My post is directly related to flat earth
Flat earth ==> No rockets go into space (also for violation of physics of propelling against weightless fuel) ===> ICBM are just plain science fiction
Agreed. It is all science fiction.
-
No idea off the top of my head.
I was a radar operator, I didn't design the sub.
I had three years of sub experience. I was in the Navy for 15 total.
I didn't expect you to fall apart after the first question. ;D
Didn't you get any low down on the sub you were on. You know , like people do if they go onto a craft. They get briefed on it and take a course on how it all works- dimensions, etc. Did they just sling you on it and say, "there's your spot - look at that sceen with blips on." ...?
Google it then and tell me the depth of the hull minus the conning tower.
-
Where am I falling apart?
Didn't you get any low down on the sub you were on. You know , like people do if they go onto a craft. They get briefed on it and take a course on how it all works- dimensions, etc. Did they just sling you on it and say, "there's your spot - look at that sceen with blips on." ...?
I did six months of training before being assigned to the sub. You get schooled in every part of the sub and get the "low down" on all of it.
But that doesn't mean that over 20 years later..........every man on the sub is going to remember the hull depth off the top of his head.
Google it then and tell me the depth of the hull minus the conning tower.
No.
-
No idea off the top of my head.
I was a radar operator, I didn't design the sub.
I had three years of sub experience. I was in the Navy for 15 total.
I didn't expect you to fall apart after the first question. ;D
Didn't you get any low down on the sub you were on. You know , like people do if they go onto a craft. They get briefed on it and take a course on how it all works- dimensions, etc. Did they just sling you on it and say, "there's your spot - look at that sceen with blips on." ...?
Google it then and tell me the depth of the hull minus the conning tower.
How does his not knowing details about the submarine's structural design make him a liar and falling apart? Your logic is astounding ::)
-
When USA starts wars in the region they always try all kinds of weapons, for example in wars on Iraq they launched cruise missiles from submarines, they used B2 stealth bombers flying from Whiteman AFB , USA directly.
My question here: Did you ever see USA trying during the war a single ICBM missile with a conventional warhead ?, an ICBM which suppose to go into space in one stage like the peacemaker? You did not see and you will never see. Also Iraqi Scud missiles does never go into space.
First of all, ICBMs are armed with nukes, not conventional warheads. Secondly, the V-2 (a fairly short range ballistic missile) was the the first man-made object to go into space. Thirdly, how do you know that Scuds never went into space?
-
My post is directly related to flat earth
Flat earth ==> No rockets go into space (also for violation of physics of propelling against weightless fuel) ===> ICBM are just plain science fiction
Only if you can tell me why ICBMs are not possible on a FE.
-
Where am I falling apart?
Didn't you get any low down on the sub you were on. You know , like people do if they go onto a craft. They get briefed on it and take a course on how it all works- dimensions, etc. Did they just sling you on it and say, "there's your spot - look at that sceen with blips on." ...?
I did six months of training before being assigned to the sub. You get schooled in every part of the sub and get the "low down" on all of it.
But that doesn't mean that over 20 years later..........every man on the sub is going to remember the hull depth off the top of his head.
Google it then and tell me the depth of the hull minus the conning tower.
No.
Ok, no problem. It sort of negates your attempt to shut me down by telling me you were on a sub that launched tomahawk missiles, doesn't it?
You're not willing to give me any details to back up your claim and can't recall anything about the subs dimensions. It reeks, to me.
-
When USA starts wars in the region they always try all kinds of weapons, for example in wars on Iraq they launched cruise missiles from submarines, they used B2 stealth bombers flying from Whiteman AFB , USA directly.
My question here: Did you ever see USA trying during the war a single ICBM missile with a conventional warhead ?, an ICBM which suppose to go into space in one stage like the peacemaker? You did not see and you will never see. Also Iraqi Scud missiles does never go into space.
First of all, ICBMs are armed with nukes, not conventional warheads. Secondly, the V-2 (a fairly short range ballistic missile) was the the first man-made object to go into space. Thirdly, how do you know that Scuds never went into space?
Go and take a look at a V2 rocket then tell me it went into space. You are not this naive.
-
Ok, no problem. It sort of negates your attempt to shut me down by telling me you were on a sub that launched tomahawk missiles, doesn't it?
Because I don't know the hull depth? How does that negate anything?
If I said I was a school teacher and you asked me how high the ceilings were in my classroom and I didn't know.....would that mean I'm not a school teacher?
You're not willing to give me any details to back up your claim and can't recall anything about the subs dimensions. It reeks, to me.
I can give plenty of details. I just don't know the height of the hull.
The Louisville is a Los Angeles class submarine. It is a nuclear powered submarine. I believe it weighs over 6000 tons and is 350 feet long. That's the best I can do with structural info off the top of my head.
It is typically stationed in San Diego. In the Gulf War we traveled from San Diego to the Gulf in the sub and the Louisville was the first sub to launch a Tomahawk on Iraq.
-
Go and take a look at a V2 rocket then tell me it went into space. You are not this naive.
Do you honestly think that you can just look at a rocket and tell whether or not it can go into space? And you have the nerve to call me naive? ::)
-
Go and take a look at a V2 rocket then tell me it went into space. You are not this naive.
Do you honestly think that you can just look at a rocket and tell whether or not it can go into space? And you have the nerve to call me naive? ::)
Yes you can. Just look at what fuel it is releasing and the size of it. It would be a dud before it got a few miles up.
-
Ok, no problem. It sort of negates your attempt to shut me down by telling me you were on a sub that launched tomahawk missiles, doesn't it?
Because I don't know the hull depth? How does that negate anything?
If I said I was a school teacher and you asked me how high the ceilings were in my classroom and I didn't know.....would that mean I'm not a school teacher?
You're not willing to give me any details to back up your claim and can't recall anything about the subs dimensions. It reeks, to me.
I can give plenty of details. I just don't know the height of the hull.
The Louisville is a Los Angeles class submarine. It is a nuclear powered submarine. I believe it weighs over 6000 tons and is 350 feet long. That's the best I can do with structural info off the top of my head.
It is typically stationed in San Diego. In the Gulf War we traveled from San Diego to the Gulf in the sub and the Louisville was the first sub to launch a Tomahawk on Iraq.
At a guess, how deep would you say the hull was? I mean you've obviously toured it so you must be able to guess.
I mean a school teacher could guess the height of a ceiling to floor, roughly. I'm sure you can estimate roughly.
-
Here's your tomahawk sub launch. It must be as scary as hell for those bad guys not knowing this bad boy will home in on their land from the sea...unless it doesn't actually reach that is. I recall setting off a fire work rocket that went further than this.
I didn't realise they launched these tomahawks at an angle. Maybe some navy sub expert could put me right on this. Is there anyone on here that's had experinece on subs that launch tomahawk missiles?
(http://#)
-
My best guess would be that the beam would be around 30 to 35 feet.
-
# (http://#)
-
Go and take a look at a V2 rocket then tell me it went into space. You are not this naive.
Do you honestly think that you can just look at a rocket and tell whether or not it can go into space? And you have the nerve to call me naive? ::)
Yes you can. Just look at what fuel it is releasing and the size of it. It would be a dud before it got a few miles up.
You do realize that if the V2 gains enough speed, then a few miles under power is all it would need to be able to coast up into space, then down into England, don't you? Or are you saying that all of the V2 rockets that fell on England were faked too?
-
Go and take a look at a V2 rocket then tell me it went into space. You are not this naive.
Do you honestly think that you can just look at a rocket and tell whether or not it can go into space? And you have the nerve to call me naive? ::)
Yes you can. Just look at what fuel it is releasing and the size of it. It would be a dud before it got a few miles up.
You do realize that if the V2 gains enough speed, then a few miles under power is all it would need to be able to coast up into space, then down into England, don't you? Or are you saying that all of the V2 rockets that fell on England were faked too?
If a V2 gains enough speed it will coast up into space. Oh, ok. So the next time you go up a steep hill in your car, take a good old run at the hill then put it in neutral, let's see how far up that hill you coast.
No V2 has been launched into space. No V2 has been launched from Germany to England.
The only bombs that fell on england, were dropped from planes.
Are you not having any of that?
Ok then. If you can tell me how those V2 rockets navigated to hit their targets and how they managed to achieve this with the fuel and amount used, I'll start taking note.
-
So the 3000 V2 rockets that killed over 9000 people during WWII were just fake?
How about the 12000 labor and concentration camp workers that died making the rockets? All Fake?
-
At a guess, how deep would you say the hull was? I mean you've obviously toured it so you must be able to guess.
I mean a school teacher could guess the height of a ceiling to floor, roughly. I'm sure you can estimate roughly.
30 feet, I would guess.
Though not sure at all that that proves.
-
So the 3000 V2 rockets that killed over 9000 people during WWII were just fake?
How about the 12000 labor and concentration camp workers that died making the rockets? All Fake?
What do you think about the 10's of thousands of Persians that were killed by the 300 spartans?
Have a think on that.
-
What do you think about the 10's of thousands of Persians that were killed by the 300 spartans?
Have a think on that.
Oh, nice try scepti but as usual you're only about 2% as smart as you believe yourself to be.
Answer my questions, without deflecting.
Are the 9000 documented victims of V2 attacks fake? Are the 12000 known victims of concentration camps that had been put to work on building the rockets fake?
Keep in mind WWII happened during a time where people could be verified to have existed while the war of the 300 did not.
-
At a guess, how deep would you say the hull was? I mean you've obviously toured it so you must be able to guess.
I mean a school teacher could guess the height of a ceiling to floor, roughly. I'm sure you can estimate roughly.
30 feet, I would guess.
Though not sure at all that that proves.
And how much of that 30 feet was fully usable space to launch a tomahawk missile by compressed air. Then for that missile to ignite once out of the water , then onto it's target?
You see, these tomahawk missiles actually leave the water, already ignited. Any idea how this magic happens. I'm open to suggestions from experts.
Also, what I would like to know, as an outside thought. These things are rockets, so shouldn't they work on the same basis as a space rocket? You know...not needing to use the atmosphere to work?
-
So the 3000 V2 rockets that killed over 9000 people during WWII were just fake?
How about the 12000 labor and concentration camp workers that died making the rockets? All Fake?
What do you think about the 10's of thousands of Persians that were killed by the 300 spartans?
Have a think on that.
The 300 were accompanied by a few thousand other soldiers as well.
-
What do you think about the 10's of thousands of Persians that were killed by the 300 spartans?
Have a think on that.
Oh, nice try scepti but as usual you're only about 2% as smart as you believe yourself to be.
Answer my questions, without deflecting.
Are the 9000 documented victims of V2 attacks fake? Are the 12000 known victims of concentration camps that had been put to work on building the rockets fake?
Keep in mind WWII happened during a time where people could be verified to have existed while the war of the 300 did not.
Did you verify this stuff or were you told about it? I mean, I watched a film about the 300 spartans and they did kill loads of Persians. I seen that. They even forced loads off a cliff.
I was told about Ghengis Khan and what he done.
King Harold was shot trough the eye with an arrow.
Richard the turd's skeleton was found under a car park.
-
So the 3000 V2 rockets that killed over 9000 people during WWII were just fake?
How about the 12000 labor and concentration camp workers that died making the rockets? All Fake?
What do you think about the 10's of thousands of Persians that were killed by the 300 spartans?
Have a think on that.
The 300 were accompanied by a few thousand other soldiers as well.
What happened to the other few thousand? Did they run away when the 300 were all arrowed to death?
I mean, I'm only going by what I saw in the movie about it.
-
And how much of that 30 feet was fully usable space to launch a tomahawk missile by compressed air. Then for that missile to ignite once out of the water , then onto it's target?
You see, these tomahawk missiles actually leave the water, already ignited. Any idea how this magic happens. I'm open to suggestions from experts.
Also, what I would like to know, as an outside thought. These things are rockets, so shouldn't they work on the same basis as a space rocket? You know...not needing to use the atmosphere to work?
The missiles are stored and launched from pressurized canisters. They are over 20 feet in length with the booster and are jet engine powered.
Why do you think they are not capable of being ignited in the water?
Please explain, in childlike terms, what you don't understand?
-
And how much of that 30 feet was fully usable space to launch a tomahawk missile by compressed air. Then for that missile to ignite once out of the water , then onto it's target?
You see, these tomahawk missiles actually leave the water, already ignited. Any idea how this magic happens. I'm open to suggestions from experts.
Also, what I would like to know, as an outside thought. These things are rockets, so shouldn't they work on the same basis as a space rocket? You know...not needing to use the atmosphere to work?
The missiles are stored and launched from pressurized canisters. They are over 20 feet in length with the booster and are jet engine powered.
Why do you think they are not capable of being ignited in the water?
Please explain, in childlike terms, what you don't understand?
How do you ignite a rocket engine underwater?
-
Did you verify this stuff or were you told about it? I mean, I watched a film about the 300 spartans and they did kill loads of Persians. I seen that. They even forced loads off a cliff.
I was told about Ghengis Khan and what he done.
King Harold was shot trough the eye with an arrow.
Richard the turd's skeleton was found under a car park.
I speak 4 languages and there are no words in any of them to explain just how completely ignorant and stupid you really are.
-
Did you verify this stuff or were you told about it? I mean, I watched a film about the 300 spartans and they did kill loads of Persians. I seen that. They even forced loads off a cliff.
I was told about Ghengis Khan and what he done.
King Harold was shot trough the eye with an arrow.
Richard the turd's skeleton was found under a car park.
I speak 4 languages and there are no words in any of them to explain just how completely ignorant and stupid you really are.
Maybe it's best you take up another language where you can explain it then. It's only logical.
-
Underwater Model Rocket Launch (http://#ws)
Even a model rocket can be ignited and launched under water.
-
You should really stop using the word logic in all it's form.
You never display anything that comes close to logic.
-
]You do realize that if the V2 gains enough speed, then a few miles under power is all it would need to be able to coast up into space, then down into England, don't you? Or are you saying that all of the V2 rockets that fell on England were faked too?
If a V2 gains enough speed it will coast up into space. Oh, ok. So the next time you go up a steep hill in your car, take a good old run at the hill then put it in neutral, let's see how far up that hill you coast.
I'm not sure that I understand what you're getting at.
No V2 has been launched into space. No V2 has been launched from Germany to England.
The only bombs that fell on england, were dropped from planes.
You claim that you live in England. I'm sure that there are still some WWII survivors that disagree with you. Why don't you look some of them up some time.
BTW, you are right in that V2s were not launched from Germany to England. They were launched from France and The Netherlands to England.
Are you not having any of that?
Ok then. If you can tell me how those V2 rockets navigated to hit their targets and how they managed to achieve this with the fuel and amount used, I'll start taking note.
The V2s were not meant to terribly accurate, but the gyroscopic stabilization was good enough to get it in the neighborhood of London. As for the fuel... I'm sure that Werner von Braun spent a lot of time and effort doing the math to figure out just how much fuel would be required to get his rocket from point A to point B.
-
Underwater Model Rocket Launch (http://#ws)
Even a model rocket can be ignited and launched under water.
Yes, that fire was intense.
-
Yes, that fire was intense.
It was a model rocket, what would you expect?
Please provide me with reasoning on how a rocket can't be fired under water. And don't tell me that it can't be because it can't be. Please explain it in scientific terms.
I'll wait.
-
It's amusing (and somewhat irritating) that every discussion sceptimatic enters into rapidly degrades to little more than us round earthers responding to his incessant streams of puerile pseudo-scientific piffle. Even the flat earthers on this site have disowned him LOL.
His very first comment on this thread:
There are no such things as ICBMs. There are ballistic missiles that can go up to a certain height and fall back to the ground in a arc however many miles away before the fuel is spent.
All this TV stuff where missiles fly horizontally over the sea and land, dodging mountains and what not, then home in on the target, are just that, TV fantasy.
You'll note the lack of even the simplest evidence supporting these nonsensical claims; no references; no links; no citations; nothing at all. Just the vacuous mouthings of somebody with absolutely zero knowledge of anything scientific, desperate to be involved in the discussion to prove his self-defined but totally absent prowess. He's like a little kiddie repeatedly tugging at his mummy's skirt for attention (although I don't mean to insult 4-year-olds by saying this).
Before you waste our time by posting any further fanciful claims about ICBMs, can I suggest you check out this site sceptimatic:
Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles (http://bit.ly/1qGkttH) from the Federation of American Scientists.
-
(http://#)
If you people want to be so naive as to buy into this absolute crap, then go for it. Don't expect me to.
(http://#)
Here's a V1 with jet engine. (keep in mind the jet engine)
Look how it's launched. Look at the over grown trees over the sillt ramp. Look at the speed of take off.
Look at the V1 speeding into the air and the camera following it (in 1936)
Now open your ears and listen to this jet engine that sounds like an old prop job.
What is it going to take for people to wake up to this absolute nonsense?
(http://#)
Do I really need to explain?
Did you hear what was said? These rockets exploded on cities before anyone even knew they were there. How convenient.
Anyone that thinks these silly rockets could navigate to targets overseas is welcome to think it.
All this fantasy stuff stretches back as far as anyone cares to go.
-
Yes, that fire was intense.
It was a model rocket, what would you expect?
Please provide me with reasoning on how a rocket can't be fired under water. And don't tell me that it can't be because it can't be. Please explain it in scientific terms.
I'll wait.
Tell me how a tomahawk from a submarine can be propelled up to the surface and then ignite before its arse end is out of the water, then simply fly to it's target.
Never mind baloney scientific terms.
-
It's amusing (and somewhat irritating) that every discussion sceptimatic enters into rapidly degrades to little more than us round earthers responding to his incessant streams of puerile pseudo-scientific piffle. Even the flat earthers on this site have disowned him LOL.
His very first comment on this thread:
There are no such things as ICBMs. There are ballistic missiles that can go up to a certain height and fall back to the ground in a arc however many miles away before the fuel is spent.
All this TV stuff where missiles fly horizontally over the sea and land, dodging mountains and what not, then home in on the target, are just that, TV fantasy.
You'll note the lack of even the simplest evidence supporting these nonsensical claims; no references; no links; no citations; nothing at all. Just the vacuous mouthings of somebody with absolutely zero knowledge of anything scientific, desperate to be involved in the discussion to prove his self-defined but totally absent prowess. He's like a little kiddie repeatedly tugging at his mummy's skirt for attention (although I don't mean to insult 4-year-olds by saying this).
Before you waste our time by posting any further fanciful claims about ICBMs, can I suggest you check out this site sceptimatic:
Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles (http://bit.ly/1qGkttH) from the Federation of American Scientists.
From the federation of American scientists. ;D
Tell me, Geoffrey. Do tomahawk missiles work like a space rocket?
-
Yes, that fire was intense.
It was a model rocket, what would you expect?
Please provide me with reasoning on how a rocket can't be fired under water. And don't tell me that it can't be because it can't be. Please explain it in scientific terms.
I'll wait.
Tell me how a tomahawk from a submarine can be propelled up to the surface and then ignite before its arse end is out of the water, then simply fly to it's target.
Never mind baloney scientific terms.
You're the one denying it's possible, not me.
So either explain, in detailed terms, why it's not possible or admit you only deny things because you don't understand them.
Or continue to deflect. Those are your three options. I already know which one you will choose.
-
Yes, that fire was intense.
It was a model rocket, what would you expect?
Please provide me with reasoning on how a rocket can't be fired under water. And don't tell me that it can't be because it can't be. Please explain it in scientific terms.
I'll wait.
Tell me how a tomahawk from a submarine can be propelled up to the surface and then ignite before its arse end is out of the water, then simply fly to it's target.
Never mind baloney scientific terms.
You're the one denying it's possible, not me.
So either explain, in detailed terms, why it's not possible or admit you only deny things because you don't understand them.
Or continue to deflect. Those are your three options. I already know which one you will choose.
It's ok if you're stumped for an answer. I can understand that because it's not possible for the launches to happen like we see.
-
Deflection it is. Exactly as I thought.
You can only deny stuff. But you can never explain why you're denying them because you don't actually understand them to begin with.
-
Deflection it is. Exactly as I thought.
You can only deny stuff. But you can never explain why you're denying them because you don't actually understand them to begin with.
No deflection here. I'm simply saying that the ICBM'S are bogus and so are the so called ICBM'S launched from submarines.
Compressed air my arse.
-
US Submarine-Launched Ballistic Missiles (SLBM) (http://#)
Please explain what is actually happening in this video scepti.
-
I'm simply saying that the ICBM'S are bogus and so are the so called ICBM'S launched from submarines.
Compressed air my arse.
Yet you can't explain intelligently why they are "bogus".
You can only deny......you can't elaborate on it.
-
US Submarine-Launched Ballistic Missiles (SLBM) (http://#)
Please explain what is actually happening in this video scepti.
A load of terrible special effects. What do you think is happening?
-
If they are special effects please explain why it can't be possible in reality to launch a rocket from under water.
-
Put some effort in scepti.
Have a think.
-
If they are special effects please explain why it can't be possible in reality to launch a rocket from under water.
A couple of reasons why it wouldn't happen.
1. Using compressed air to launch a 20 plus foot so called missile vertically from a submarine would immediately hit problems upon ejection. As the tube opened to allow the head of the missile out, the water would immediately rush in and counteract the push, leaving only the bouyancy of the rocket, which would be full of fuel plus a warhead to mildly float to the top and pop it's head above water.
2.No missile would ignite under water and propel above it. This should be common sense. Even if you could, all you would do is flash boil the water, so basically your reliance is on basically compressed air again from the oxygen and fuel mixture inside the missile.
Missile require air to push against. They have to be able to super heat that air to create enough low pressure to allow the higher pressure air to fill that space and push the rocket up. Water is not going to provide that, unless that rocket can be popped out of the water and then ignite, then to gain enough momentum to go ballistic.
It's agood for TV and good for sci-fi - but that's about it.
-
Deflection it is. Exactly as I thought.
You can only deny stuff. But you can never explain why you're denying them because you don't actually understand them to begin with.
Deflecting questions for which he has no answers is a fine art to people such as sceptimatic. You'll notice that he never answers any questions put to him directly. He also never posts any links, references or citations to his claims; he says he just "knows" things are factual—without any viable evidence. He can work out any complex scientific scenario solely within his own brain, and without reference to any standard science texts.
His main defence (if you can call it that LOL) is to insult people personally with childish rebukes, and refute their claims and/or empirical evidence by simply saying they're lies or fabrications or part of some gigantic conspiracy—that only he can see through. He also claims that we round earthers are nothing more than shills, and part of the conspiracy to maintain what he calls the myth of the spherical planet alive.
He often explains away the inexplicable (in flat earth terms) by calling on something he calls "denpressure". He can't describe its units of measurement, nor can he say whether it's a scalar or a vector quantity. Apparently denpressure is an entity that's a combination of two dissimilar entities—density and pressure. If you ask him to clarify denpressure—as I have numerous times here—he'll simply refuse, and probably insult your intelligence while he's at it.
-
If they are special effects please explain why it can't be possible in reality to launch a rocket from under water.
A couple of reasons why it wouldn't happen.
1. Using compressed air to launch a 20 plus foot so called missile vertically from a submarine would immediately hit problems upon ejection. As the tube opened to allow the head of the missile out, the water would immediately rush in and counteract the push, leaving only the bouyancy of the rocket, which would be full of fuel plus a warhead to mildly float to the top and pop it's head above water.
2.No missile would ignite under water and propel above it. This should be common sense. Even if you could, all you would do is flash boil the water, so basically your reliance is on basically compressed air again from the oxygen and fuel mixture inside the missile.
Missile require air to push against. They have to be able to super heat that air to create enough low pressure to allow the higher pressure air to fill that space and push the rocket up. Water is not going to provide that, unless that rocket can be popped out of the water and then ignite, then to gain enough momentum to go ballistic.
It's agood for TV and good for sci-fi - but that's about it.
First of all, the missile launch is a two-stage process - the missile engine doesn't actually start until it's clear out of the water. SLBMs and vertical-launched Tomahawks actually get pushed out by high-pressure air with enough force to lift the tail end a few feet out of the water - then the rocket engine kicks in, and in the case of the Tomahawk the process of deploying and starting the jet engine and dropping the rocket engine begins. With Harpoon it's a bit different - they are launched horizontally from the torpedo tube within a container shaped a bit like a torpedo. That container then angles upwards and soon breaches the water surface... then the top blows off and the missile is launched from inside the launch container.
All of those missiles will get a last position update right before launch, so they'll roughly know where they are when they leave the water - the vertically launched missiles of course having a better position fix than the tube-launched ones, as those travel a bit downrange. Once airborne, the missiles will then switch on their GPS receivers and will get a position fix from GPS within seconds (military GPS receivers getting a much more accurate signal than the civilian ones...). Once the navigation system has an updated position, it will plot an updated course for the missile to follow.
-
1. V2 rockets do not go into space. I don't know who said they did, but they don't.
2. Rockets can of course launch underwater. Rocket engines do not take oxygen from the air. They either use stored liquid oxygen or another oxidizer or use a solid fuel that is self oxidizing. This is why there are so many videos of rockets launching from underwater. Not to mention the other ways using compressed air that were mentioned. Gunpowder is self oxidizing, this is why you can shoot guns underwater.
3. Sceptic once again shows how he knows nothing about anything.
-
Can i answer the original question. The simple reason ICBMs have never been used with conventional warheads is because they can be mistaken for a nuclear launch. Especially when country's like Russia were on a launch on warning fitting during the cold war
-
Rockets can of course launch underwater. Rocket engines do not take oxygen from the air. They either use stored liquid oxygen or another oxidizer or use a solid fuel that is self oxidizing. This is why there are so many videos of rockets launching from underwater. Not to mention the other ways using compressed air that were mentioned. Gunpowder is self oxidizing, this is why you can shoot guns underwater.
3. Sceptic once again shows how he knows nothing about anything.
20:18 onwards. You were saying about rockets?
(http://#ws)
-
Notice how right around the mark you pointed out scepti...........your question about water flooding into the tube is answered.
-
Notice how right around the mark you pointed out scepti...........your question about water flooding into the tube is answered.
Of course it's answered. I mean, they have to provide the reason don't they, or their ruse is immediately ripped apart.
If you watch the video a little bit further back, they even try to cover for the heavier so called ballistic missiles by pretending the fire their rockets into some water to create steam that pushed the missile out. It's complete and absolute baloney, seriously.
I ask any rational person to question this stuff.
Next time anyone goes in the bath, get a bar of soap and pull it under the water near the bottom, then squeeze that soap as hard as you can to try and get it to jump out of the water.
The best you will do is pop it to the top and that's it.
Do people seriously believe that compressed air in a pipe can propel a 20 plus foot fully fueled missile up through 120 feet of water to pop out of the sea, then fire a rocket engine to go and hit a target.
It's stuff of fantasy. It's made for TV bull crap to have us all believing that nobody is safe at any distance.
-
Wow.
So because when little baby scepti sits in the bath tub and mommy forgot to give him a ducky.......he plays with the soap instead. And he can't make the soap launch out of the water.
There it is folks. Proof rockets can't work in the water. Scepti said so and used a bar of soap in the bath tub as his proof.
-
Notice how right around the mark you pointed out scepti...........your question about water flooding into the tube is answered.
Of course it's answered. I mean, they have to provide the reason don't they, or their ruse is immediately ripped apart.
If you watch the video a little bit further back, they even try to cover for the heavier so called ballistic missiles by pretending the fire their rockets into some water to create steam that pushed the missile out. It's complete and absolute baloney, seriously.
I ask any rational person to question this stuff.
Next time anyone goes in the bath, get a bar of soap and pull it under the water near the bottom, then squeeze that soap as hard as you can to try and get it to jump out of the water.
The best you will do is pop it to the top and that's it.
Do people seriously believe that compressed air in a pipe can propel a 20 plus foot fully fueled missile up through 120 feet of water to pop out of the sea, then fire a rocket engine to go and hit a target.
It's stuff of fantasy. It's made for TV bull crap to have us all believing that nobody is safe at any distance.
It is just your total lack of knowledge of science and engineering that is your problem.
-
Safe to say this discussion is over.
/thread
-
Wow.
So because when little baby scepti sits in the bath tub and mommy forgot to give him a ducky.......he plays with the soap instead. And he can't make the soap launch out of the water.
There it is folks. Proof rockets can't work in the water. Scepti said so and used a bar of soap in the bath tub as his proof.
Go in a swimming pool and use some compressed air rocket if you want to. I promise you it won't jump out of the water and leave a gap at its arse end.
-
No, please stop.
You convinced me at bar of soap in the bathtub.
I'm transferring over to your team now. I fully believe in the ice dome and everything else.
The empirical evidence you have provided is undeniable.
-
Underwater Rocket Leg Test - Bionic Builders (http://#)
Underwater Rocket Launch (http://#ws)
India successfully test fires underwater missile B-05 (http://#)
-
Next time anyone goes in the bath, get a bar of soap and pull it under the water near the bottom, then squeeze that soap as hard as you can to try and get it to jump out of the water.
The best you will do is pop it to the top and that's it.
Wow! This is the sort of scientific expertise that would've had Einstein grovelling at your feet sceptimatic!
This absolutely destroys the entire theory of ballistics in one fell swoop.
Well done.
-
Rockets can of course launch underwater. Rocket engines do not take oxygen from the air. They either use stored liquid oxygen or another oxidizer or use a solid fuel that is self oxidizing. This is why there are so many videos of rockets launching from underwater. Not to mention the other ways using compressed air that were mentioned. Gunpowder is self oxidizing, this is why you can shoot guns underwater.
3. Sceptic once again shows how he knows nothing about anything.
20:18 onwards. You were saying about rockets?
(http://#ws)
That agrees with what I and others have said. It does not agree with anything you said.
When the video claimed rockets can't work under water if was wrong. I'm sure the type of rocket they were showing in the video is too big to work underwater.
A video of an Estes Rocket launching underwater has already been posted.
-
Underwater Rocket Leg Test - Bionic Builders (http://#)
Underwater Rocket Launch (http://#ws)
Do any of those videos show a rocket launching out of the water ?
-
Rockets can of course launch underwater. Rocket engines do not take oxygen from the air. They either use stored liquid oxygen or another oxidizer or use a solid fuel that is self oxidizing. This is why there are so many videos of rockets launching from underwater. Not to mention the other ways using compressed air that were mentioned. Gunpowder is self oxidizing, this is why you can shoot guns underwater.
3. Sceptic once again shows how he knows nothing about anything.
20:18 onwards. You were saying about rockets?
(http://#ws)
That agrees with what I and others have said. It does not agree with anything you said.
When the video claimed rockets can't work under water if was wrong. I'm sure the type of rocket they were showing in the video is too big to work underwater.
A video of an Estes Rocket launching underwater has already been posted.
Here's a video of a fighter jet launched from a submarine, so I guess it must be true. Don;t dare tell me that this is special effects.
(http://#)
-
You had me at soap in the bath tub.
No need to keep arguing.
-
By the way.......
(http://)
All you posted was yet another video of a missile being launched from under the water. Something you say is impossible. It's doctored, poorly, to look like a jet.
Thanks for providing more visible proof that what you say is impossible actually isn't.
-
By the way.......
(http://)
All you posted was yet another video of a missile being launched from under the water. Something you say is impossible. It's doctored, poorly, to look like a jet.
Thanks for providing more visible proof that what you say is impossible actually isn't.
And here's me thinking it was a real jet launch.
It's amazing what can be done isn't it, even if it does look fake. Just like the rockets that are launched.
-
The rockets that are launched are real.
I've seen it done with my own two eyes.
If you stop playing with your soap in the bathtub you might be able to get out in the world and experience real stuff too.
-
The rockets that are launched are real.
I've seen it done with my own two eyes.
If you stop playing with your soap in the bathtub you might be able to get out in the world and experience real stuff too.
Where were you when you watched a rocket launch from a submarine or a space rocket launch?
Describe it to me.
-
I've watched a space shuttle launch from Cape Canaveral.
I've seen a lot of missiles launched from both above the water and below. From being in Desert Storm to military exercises and so on.
-
I've watched a space shuttle launch from Cape Canaveral.
I've seen a lot of missiles launched from both above the water and below. From being in Desert Storm to military exercises and so on.
Yeah, I watched santa deliver all his presents and saw him take off.
-
I've watched a space shuttle launch from Cape Canaveral.
I've seen a lot of missiles launched from both above the water and below. From being in Desert Storm to military exercises and so on.
Yeah, I watched santa deliver all his presents and saw him take off.
That's special. Did he deliver you some soap on a rope? It's much easier to hold in the tub.
-
I've watched a space shuttle launch from Cape Canaveral.
I've seen a lot of missiles launched from both above the water and below. From being in Desert Storm to military exercises and so on.
Yeah, I watched santa deliver all his presents and saw him take off.
That's special. Did he deliver you some soap on a rope? It's much easier to hold in the tub.
I think it's time you started to question some of this stuff. You can't be comfortable living in a world of lies now that you can see how your percieved reality carries a lot of fakery.
-
There are a ton of lies in the world. All over the place. Conspiracies are abound. Governments are corrupt.
The shape of the Earth? Not a lie.
Rockets in the water? Also not a lie.
You make the unfounded assumption that someone that believes the above must be brainwashed and believes all lies. You're an idiot. It's time for a bath.
-
There are a ton of lies in the world. All over the place. Conspiracies are abound. Governments are corrupt.
The shape of the Earth? Not a lie.
Rockets in the water? Also not a lie.
You make the unfounded assumption that someone that believes the above must be brainwashed and believes all lies. You're an idiot. It's time for a bath.
There are a lot of lies and truths. When you are told the lies and you accept them to be as such, when do you figure out the truth?
The only genuine way to do it is to question it or physically prove it.
If a known liar tells you another story which may be perfectly true, you're still going to question it. If you can't prove it outright to be the truth, you will assume it could be a lie.
If that person friend tells you it's true because they seen it, are you going to accept that answer? Obviously not.
It's why I don't accept your answers where you tell me you seen a real shuttle launch and submarine rocket launches, because I believe you are telling blatant lies to try and make the space industry sound legitimate for whatever reason.
-
Nothing wrong with questioning things if you do it logically.
I question everything the US government does. I believe them to be among the most corrupt in the world. I do the same for my home country of Saudi Arabia. They are beyond corrupt.
There is no reason to question the shape of the Earth. For one, the proof that is what everyone says it is.....is open and apparent to anyone that opens their eyes. For two, a conspiracy that would hide the true shape defies logic.
As for rockets.........I've seen them. And that's good enough for me.
because I believe you are telling blatant lies to try and make the space industry sound legitimate for whatever reason.
Some guy from NASA PMed and threatened me if I didn't. Seemed serious.
-
There are a ton of lies in the world. All over the place. Conspiracies are abound. Governments are corrupt.
The shape of the Earth? Not a lie.
Rockets in the water? Also not a lie.
You make the unfounded assumption that someone that believes the above must be brainwashed and believes all lies. You're an idiot. It's time for a bath.
There are a lot of lies and truths. When you are told the lies and you accept them to be as such, when do you figure out the truth?
The only genuine way to do it is to question it or physically prove it.
If a known liar tells you another story which may be perfectly true, you're still going to question it. If you can't prove it outright to be the truth, you will assume it could be a lie.
If that person friend tells you it's true because they seen it, are you going to accept that answer? Obviously not.
It's why I don't accept your answers where you tell me you seen a real shuttle launch and submarine rocket launches, because I believe you are telling blatant lies to try and make the space industry sound legitimate for whatever reason.
Please explain how tv satellites get into orbit.
-
There are a ton of lies in the world. All over the place. Conspiracies are abound. Governments are corrupt.
The shape of the Earth? Not a lie.
Rockets in the water? Also not a lie.
You make the unfounded assumption that someone that believes the above must be brainwashed and believes all lies. You're an idiot. It's time for a bath.
There are a lot of lies and truths. When you are told the lies and you accept them to be as such, when do you figure out the truth?
The only genuine way to do it is to question it or physically prove it.
If a known liar tells you another story which may be perfectly true, you're still going to question it. If you can't prove it outright to be the truth, you will assume it could be a lie.
If that person friend tells you it's true because they seen it, are you going to accept that answer? Obviously not.
It's why I don't accept your answers where you tell me you seen a real shuttle launch and submarine rocket launches, because I believe you are telling blatant lies to try and make the space industry sound legitimate for whatever reason.
Please explain how tv satellites get into orbit.
Put up a thread if you want an answer to that.
-
Rockets can of course launch underwater. Rocket engines do not take oxygen from the air. They either use stored liquid oxygen or another oxidizer or use a solid fuel that is self oxidizing. This is why there are so many videos of rockets launching from underwater. Not to mention the other ways using compressed air that were mentioned. Gunpowder is self oxidizing, this is why you can shoot guns underwater.
3. Sceptic once again shows how he knows nothing about anything.
20:18 onwards. You were saying about rockets?
(http://#ws)
That agrees with what I and others have said. It does not agree with anything you said.
When the video claimed rockets can't work under water if was wrong. I'm sure the type of rocket they were showing in the video is too big to work underwater.
A video of an Estes Rocket launching underwater has already been posted.
Here's a video of a fighter jet launched from a submarine, so I guess it must be true. Don;t dare tell me that this is special effects.
(http://#)
That video is fake on purpose. It even says it in the description. Like it says, it's just a jet put over a titan missile that was launched from the water. What evidence do you have that since one video was fake on purpose every single video is fake?
-
By the way.......
(http://)
All you posted was yet another video of a missile being launched from under the water. Something you say is impossible. It's doctored, poorly, to look like a jet.
Thanks for providing more visible proof that what you say is impossible actually isn't.
And here's me thinking it was a real jet launch.
It's amazing what can be done isn't it, even if it does look fake. Just like the rockets that are launched.
You know what's ironic?
This fake was made possible by doctoring a video of the thing you are claiming to be fake.
-
Rockets can of course launch underwater. Rocket engines do not take oxygen from the air. They either use stored liquid oxygen or another oxidizer or use a solid fuel that is self oxidizing. This is why there are so many videos of rockets launching from underwater. Not to mention the other ways using compressed air that were mentioned. Gunpowder is self oxidizing, this is why you can shoot guns underwater.
3. Sceptic once again shows how he knows nothing about anything.
20:18 onwards. You were saying about rockets?
(http://#ws)
That agrees with what I and others have said. It does not agree with anything you said.
When the video claimed rockets can't work under water if was wrong. I'm sure the type of rocket they were showing in the video is too big to work underwater.
A video of an Estes Rocket launching underwater has already been posted.
Here's a video of a fighter jet launched from a submarine, so I guess it must be true. Don;t dare tell me that this is special effects.
(http://#)
That video is fake on purpose. It even says it in the description. Like it says, it's just a jet put over a titan missile that was launched from the water. What evidence do you have that since one video was fake on purpose every single video is fake?
You don't say? ;D
There may come a time when special effects and CGI will hit home in how your life is manipulated into accepting official lines by the use of this stuff.
Let me just put this nice and simple for you. You will deny this but I actually know for a fact this would happen.
Let's assume that the media puts out a story about the Armed forces testing out a new fighter jet. A new jet that can launch from under the water from a special submarine.
This naturally would get people like you wondering what this new jet is and will you ever see it.
A few years later after saturation coverage into your mind, they pull out the exact video of an official jet launch from a sub.
Naturally you are the rest of the ever willing people, wil, watch the video and stand back in total awe, excited about just how far we can go with technology like this.
I come along and tell you that the whole thing is one big fake. Giess what?
I am a tin foil hat conspiracy lunatic who knows nothing and that video is real. See what I'm getting at here?
If you want to read into the science that is clearly made up fantasy, that's absolutely fine...but if you are smart, you really should be questioning this stuff and trying to see it for what it really is, which is absolute gunk.
-
By the way.......
(http://)
All you posted was yet another video of a missile being launched from under the water. Something you say is impossible. It's doctored, poorly, to look like a jet.
Thanks for providing more visible proof that what you say is impossible actually isn't.
And here's me thinking it was a real jet launch.
It's amazing what can be done isn't it, even if it does look fake. Just like the rockets that are launched.
You know what's ironic?
This fake was made possible by doctoring a video of the thing you are claiming to be fake.
You know what's even more ironic?
This fake was made possible by doctoring an already doctored video of the thing you are claiming to be real.
-
There may come a time when special effects and CGI will hit home in how your life is manipulated into accepting official lines by the use of this stuff.
Perhaps, but the 1960s, when submarine based missiles were first launched, was not that time.
-
By the way.......
(http://)
All you posted was yet another video of a missile being launched from under the water. Something you say is impossible. It's doctored, poorly, to look like a jet.
Thanks for providing more visible proof that what you say is impossible actually isn't.
And here's me thinking it was a real jet launch.
It's amazing what can be done isn't it, even if it does look fake. Just like the rockets that are launched.
You know what's ironic?
This fake was made possible by doctoring a video of the thing you are claiming to be fake.
You know what's even more ironic?
This fake was made possible by doctoring an already doctored video of the thing you are claiming to be real.
Oh really? Do you have evidence of this? Or is this another scepticertion?
-
There may come a time when special effects and CGI will hit home in how your life is manipulated into accepting official lines by the use of this stuff.
Perhaps, but the 1960s, when submarine based missiles were first launched, was not that time.
Do you have any video of a 1960 ballistic missile launch from a submarine?
-
If you want to read into the science that is clearly made up fantasy, that's absolutely fine...but if you are smart, you really should be questioning this stuff and trying to see it for what it really is, which is absolute gunk.
Why would you want us to assume that it's all "gunk" first, then question everything in light of that assumption? ???
-
There may come a time when special effects and CGI will hit home in how your life is manipulated into accepting official lines by the use of this stuff.
Perhaps, but the 1960s, when submarine based missiles were first launched, was not that time.
Do you have any video of a 1960 ballistic missile launch from a submarine?
(http://)
-
There may come a time when special effects and CGI will hit home in how your life is manipulated into accepting official lines by the use of this stuff.
Perhaps, but the 1960s, when submarine based missiles were first launched, was not that time.
Do you have any video of a 1960 ballistic missile launch from a submarine?
(http://)
You know when you take video footage anywhere? You know, you might take it of ships and subs with a nice clear sky and glistening water and such. Like clear realistic footage. Are there any realistic launches of ballistic missiles from submarines that have clear footage?
-
There may come a time when special effects and CGI will hit home in how your life is manipulated into accepting official lines by the use of this stuff.
Perhaps, but the 1960s, when submarine based missiles were first launched, was not that time.
Do you have any video of a 1960 ballistic missile launch from a submarine?
(http://)
You know when you take video footage anywhere? You know, you might take it of ships and subs with a nice clear sky and glistening water and such. Like clear realistic footage. Are there any realistic launches of ballistic missiles from submarines that have clear footage?
Uh oh.. Scepti got the video he asked for so he quickly had to make new criteria for his video. It's like a cheating husband who has to make up new lies as the old ones pile up.
-
There may come a time when special effects and CGI will hit home in how your life is manipulated into accepting official lines by the use of this stuff.
Perhaps, but the 1960s, when submarine based missiles were first launched, was not that time.
Do you have any video of a 1960 ballistic missile launch from a submarine?
(http://)
You know when you take video footage anywhere? You know, you might take it of ships and subs with a nice clear sky and glistening water and such. Like clear realistic footage. Are there any realistic launches of ballistic missiles from submarines that have clear footage?
Uh oh.. Scepti got the video he asked for so he quickly had to make new criteria for his video. It's like a cheating husband who has to make up new lies as the old ones pile up.
I asked for a 1960 sub launch video. I did make a mistake. I should have asked for a GENUINE 1960's launch video of a missile from a sub, so it was my fault for not being clear.
Anyway, do you have any genuine clear launch footage from submarine?
-
There may come a time when special effects and CGI will hit home in how your life is manipulated into accepting official lines by the use of this stuff.
Perhaps, but the 1960s, when submarine based missiles were first launched, was not that time.
Do you have any video of a 1960 ballistic missile launch from a submarine?
(http://)
You know when you take video footage anywhere? You know, you might take it of ships and subs with a nice clear sky and glistening water and such. Like clear realistic footage. Are there any realistic launches of ballistic missiles from submarines that have clear footage?
Uh oh.. Scepti got the video he asked for so he quickly had to make new criteria for his video. It's like a cheating husband who has to make up new lies as the old ones pile up.
I asked for a 1960 sub launch video. I did make a mistake. I should have asked for a GENUINE 1960's launch video of a missile from a sub, so it was my fault for not being clear.
Anyway, do you have any genuine clear launch footage from submarine?
What a surprise. An scepticertion that the video is fake? Please provide evidence for this claim. I will not hold my breathe since you have never been able to back up a claim that a video is faked.
-
There may come a time when special effects and CGI will hit home in how your life is manipulated into accepting official lines by the use of this stuff.
Perhaps, but the 1960s, when submarine based missiles were first launched, was not that time.
Do you have any video of a 1960 ballistic missile launch from a submarine?
(http://)
You know when you take video footage anywhere? You know, you might take it of ships and subs with a nice clear sky and glistening water and such. Like clear realistic footage. Are there any realistic launches of ballistic missiles from submarines that have clear footage?
Uh oh.. Scepti got the video he asked for so he quickly had to make new criteria for his video. It's like a cheating husband who has to make up new lies as the old ones pile up.
I asked for a 1960 sub launch video. I did make a mistake. I should have asked for a GENUINE 1960's launch video of a missile from a sub, so it was my fault for not being clear.
Anyway, do you have any genuine clear launch footage from submarine?
What a surprise. An scepticertion that the video is fake? Please provide evidence for this claim. I will not hold my breathe since you have never been able to back up a claim that a video is faked.
The absolute crap footage is enough for anyone to see it's fake. Are you trying to tell me that the Navy can't take dence footage of stuff like this?
Some random kid could have taken 100% better footage than this. There's a reason why video technology always turns to shite when this kind of stuff happens. It's to hide the fact that it can't be done, so they fake it all with the best effects they can muster.
-
Can you at least provide an example of what footage from the 60s should look like in your opinion?
-
There may come a time when special effects and CGI will hit home in how your life is manipulated into accepting official lines by the use of this stuff.
Perhaps, but the 1960s, when submarine based missiles were first launched, was not that time.
Do you have any video of a 1960 ballistic missile launch from a submarine?
(http://)
You know when you take video footage anywhere? You know, you might take it of ships and subs with a nice clear sky and glistening water and such. Like clear realistic footage. Are there any realistic launches of ballistic missiles from submarines that have clear footage?
Uh oh.. Scepti got the video he asked for so he quickly had to make new criteria for his video. It's like a cheating husband who has to make up new lies as the old ones pile up.
I asked for a 1960 sub launch video. I did make a mistake. I should have asked for a GENUINE 1960's launch video of a missile from a sub, so it was my fault for not being clear.
Anyway, do you have any genuine clear launch footage from submarine?
What a surprise. An scepticertion that the video is fake? Please provide evidence for this claim. I will not hold my breathe since you have never been able to back up a claim that a video is faked.
The absolute crap footage is enough for anyone to see it's fake. Are you trying to tell me that the Navy can't take dence footage of stuff like this?
Some random kid could have taken 100% better footage than this. There's a reason why video technology always turns to shite when this kind of stuff happens. It's to hide the fact that it can't be done, so they fake it all with the best effects they can muster.
Okay, so your logical deduction is as follows:
P1. The footage is absolute crap. (that's your opinion, I find it to be pretty good for the 60's, that's my opinion)
P2. Random kids can take better footage than this. (In the 60's???, not only is that not true, but it's just an argument from incredulity. Which you are a pro at)
C: The video is fake.
You are horrible at proving things are fake. Your incredulity is your problem and your problem alone.
-
Can you at least provide an example of what footage from the 60s should look like in your opinion?
Here is footage of the 1960 World Series.
(http://)
Doesn't seem to be much better or worse than the Navy video to me.
-
There may come a time when special effects and CGI will hit home in how your life is manipulated into accepting official lines by the use of this stuff.
Perhaps, but the 1960s, when submarine based missiles were first launched, was not that time.
Do you have any video of a 1960 ballistic missile launch from a submarine?
(http://)
You know when you take video footage anywhere? You know, you might take it of ships and subs with a nice clear sky and glistening water and such. Like clear realistic footage. Are there any realistic launches of ballistic missiles from submarines that have clear footage?
Uh oh.. Scepti got the video he asked for so he quickly had to make new criteria for his video. It's like a cheating husband who has to make up new lies as the old ones pile up.
I asked for a 1960 sub launch video. I did make a mistake. I should have asked for a GENUINE 1960's launch video of a missile from a sub, so it was my fault for not being clear.
Anyway, do you have any genuine clear launch footage from submarine?
How is it possible to provide any genuine videos for you when you say everything is fake?
You've already rejected things you haven't seen yet and you're still asking for videos.
It's a paradox.
-
Can you at least provide an example of what footage from the 60s should look like in your opinion?
I take it you are a human being with sensors, right? I'm pretty sure you can tell clear footage from terrible footage.
Look at film footage of nice clear skies and surroundings, the take a look at ALL the so called footage of supposed launches of rockets and such like, then ask yourself why that footage is always crap.
I'm not arguing against you, I'm arguing the crap footage, so why not take a good look yourself.
-
Okay, so your logical deduction is as follows:
P1. The footage is absolute crap. (that's your opinion, I find it to be pretty good for the 60's, that's my opinion)
P2. Random kids can take better footage than this. (In the 60's???, not only is that not true, but it's just an argument from incredulity. Which you are a pro at)
C: The video is fake.
You are horrible at proving things are fake. Your incredulity is your problem and your problem alone.
I don't have a problem. I can see the difference between clear footage and blatant crap footage, especially when the armed forces and NASA, etc, should be producing fantastic footage, yet it never is where this fantasy rocket launching stuff is concerned. There's a very good reason for it.
-
Can you at least provide an example of what footage from the 60s should look like in your opinion?
I take it you are a human being with sensors, right? I'm pretty sure you can tell clear footage from terrible footage.
Look at film footage of nice clear skies and surroundings, the take a look at ALL the so called footage of supposed launches of rockets and such like, then ask yourself why that footage is always crap.
I'm not arguing against you, I'm arguing the crap footage, so why not take a good look yourself.
I am not arguing against you. I am asking you to provide footage from 1960 that you would consider to be good.
The footage rottingroom provided of the World Series seemed about on par with the launch footage wouldn't you agree?
-
Okay, so your logical deduction is as follows:
P1. The footage is absolute crap. (that's your opinion, I find it to be pretty good for the 60's, that's my opinion)
P2. Random kids can take better footage than this. (In the 60's???, not only is that not true, but it's just an argument from incredulity. Which you are a pro at)
C: The video is fake.
You are horrible at proving things are fake. Your incredulity is your problem and your problem alone.
I don't have a problem. I can see the difference between clear footage and blatant crap footage, especially when the armed forces and NASA, etc, should be producing fantastic footage, yet it never is where this fantasy rocket launching stuff is concerned. There's a very good reason for it.
Neither NASA nor the Armed Forces is in the Film & TV business. It makes perfect sense that their footage would be utilitarian and pragmatic.
-
Can you at least provide an example of what footage from the 60s should look like in your opinion?
I take it you are a human being with sensors, right? I'm pretty sure you can tell clear footage from terrible footage.
Look at film footage of nice clear skies and surroundings, the take a look at ALL the so called footage of supposed launches of rockets and such like, then ask yourself why that footage is always crap.
I'm not arguing against you, I'm arguing the crap footage, so why not take a good look yourself.
I am not arguing against you. I am asking you to provide footage from 1960 that you would consider to be good.
The footage rottingroom provided of the World Series seemed about on par with the launch footage wouldn't you agree?
I'm not just talking about 1960's launch footage. I'm talking about all of it, right up to present day. Why is it as crap as ever?
-
Can you at least provide an example of what footage from the 60s should look like in your opinion?
I take it you are a human being with sensors, right? I'm pretty sure you can tell clear footage from terrible footage.
Look at film footage of nice clear skies and surroundings, the take a look at ALL the so called footage of supposed launches of rockets and such like, then ask yourself why that footage is always crap.
I'm not arguing against you, I'm arguing the crap footage, so why not take a good look yourself.
I am not arguing against you. I am asking you to provide footage from 1960 that you would consider to be good.
The footage rottingroom provided of the World Series seemed about on par with the launch footage wouldn't you agree?
I'm not just talking about 1960's launch footage. I'm talking about all of it, right up to present day. Why is it as crap as ever?
What parts of it are giving you the opinion that it is crappy?
-
Can you at least provide an example of what footage from the 60s should look like in your opinion?
I take it you are a human being with sensors, right? I'm pretty sure you can tell clear footage from terrible footage.
Look at film footage of nice clear skies and surroundings, the take a look at ALL the so called footage of supposed launches of rockets and such like, then ask yourself why that footage is always crap.
I'm not arguing against you, I'm arguing the crap footage, so why not take a good look yourself.
I am not arguing against you. I am asking you to provide footage from 1960 that you would consider to be good.
The footage rottingroom provided of the World Series seemed about on par with the launch footage wouldn't you agree?
I'm not just talking about 1960's launch footage. I'm talking about all of it, right up to present day. Why is it as crap as ever?
What parts of it are giving you the opinion that it is crappy?
All lauch footage of this type of stuff, from ballistic missiles from sub launches, to space rocket lauches, to shuttle launches, to nuclear detonations...you know, stuff like that. All of the footage is absolute crap.
The footage can be great until the actual time of launch, then it all goes to crap. Strange that isn't it.
-
I'm not just talking about 1960's launch footage. I'm talking about all of it, right up to present day. Why is it as crap as ever?
You mean like this one? Oh no right, that was done with the Unreal Engine 5.
(http://)
-
Can you at least provide an example of what footage from the 60s should look like in your opinion?
I take it you are a human being with sensors, right? I'm pretty sure you can tell clear footage from terrible footage.
Look at film footage of nice clear skies and surroundings, the take a look at ALL the so called footage of supposed launches of rockets and such like, then ask yourself why that footage is always crap.
I'm not arguing against you, I'm arguing the crap footage, so why not take a good look yourself.
I am not arguing against you. I am asking you to provide footage from 1960 that you would consider to be good.
The footage rottingroom provided of the World Series seemed about on par with the launch footage wouldn't you agree?
I'm not just talking about 1960's launch footage. I'm talking about all of it, right up to present day. Why is it as crap as ever?
A comparison of shuttle launches to world series footage through the years:
2011
Discovery launch
(http://)
Game 6 of World Series
(http://)
1985
Challenger Launch
(http://)
World Series
(http://)
1970
Atlas Missile Launch
(http://)
World Series
(http://)
In each case, the world series footage looks to be of slightly better quality. This is exactly what I would expect of a comparison between the footage of a TV broadcasting company and NASA.
-
Can you at least provide an example of what footage from the 60s should look like in your opinion?
I take it you are a human being with sensors, right? I'm pretty sure you can tell clear footage from terrible footage.
Look at film footage of nice clear skies and surroundings, the take a look at ALL the so called footage of supposed launches of rockets and such like, then ask yourself why that footage is always crap.
I'm not arguing against you, I'm arguing the crap footage, so why not take a good look yourself.
I am not arguing against you. I am asking you to provide footage from 1960 that you would consider to be good.
The footage rottingroom provided of the World Series seemed about on par with the launch footage wouldn't you agree?
I'm not just talking about 1960's launch footage. I'm talking about all of it, right up to present day. Why is it as crap as ever?
A comparison of shuttle launches to world series footage through the years:
2011
Discovery launch
(http://)
Game 6 of World Series
(http://)
1985
Challenger Launch
(http://)
World Series
(http://)
1970
Atlas Missile Launch
(http://)
World Series
(http://)
In each case, the world series footage looks to be of slightly better quality. This is exactly what I would expect of a comparison between the footage of a TV broadcasting company and NASA.
Why would you expect it to be better from a TV broadcasting company than NASA. Are you saying that NASA can't afford the experts that TV companies have and have far less superior video equipment? Come on Rama, you can do better than that.
-
Can you at least provide an example of what footage from the 60s should look like in your opinion?
I take it you are a human being with sensors, right? I'm pretty sure you can tell clear footage from terrible footage.
Look at film footage of nice clear skies and surroundings, the take a look at ALL the so called footage of supposed launches of rockets and such like, then ask yourself why that footage is always crap.
I'm not arguing against you, I'm arguing the crap footage, so why not take a good look yourself.
I am not arguing against you. I am asking you to provide footage from 1960 that you would consider to be good.
The footage rottingroom provided of the World Series seemed about on par with the launch footage wouldn't you agree?
I'm not just talking about 1960's launch footage. I'm talking about all of it, right up to present day. Why is it as crap as ever?
A comparison of shuttle launches to world series footage through the years:
2011
Discovery launch
(http://)
Game 6 of World Series
(http://)
1985
Challenger Launch
(http://)
World Series
(http://)
1970
Atlas Missile Launch
(http://)
World Series
(http://)
In each case, the world series footage looks to be of slightly better quality. This is exactly what I would expect of a comparison between the footage of a TV broadcasting company and NASA.
Why would you expect it to be better from a TV broadcasting company than NASA. Are you saying that NASA can't afford the experts that TV companies have and have far less superior video equipment? Come on Rama, you can do better than that.
Because TV companies specialize in TV, and NASA specializes in space exploration. The quality of the NASA footage is almost just as good. I'm actually having a hard time even saying that. To me they look the same.
-
Why would you expect it to be better from a TV broadcasting company than NASA. Are you saying that NASA can't afford the experts that TV companies have and have far less superior video equipment? Come on Rama, you can do better than that.
"Far less superior"? I think that is not an accurate assessment. They are pretty much the same. The 2011 WS footage is obviously a higher quality HD broadcast, which is something that NASA totally does not need, but even still NASAs footage looks good and the older stuff is exactly the same quality between the baseball and the launches.
-
It's also pretty much common knowledge that new technologies that advance video quality and features almost always get their start with sports (and sometimes porn). Just look at the history of 3d broadcasts and the history of 1080p and more recently 4k.
-
Can you at least provide an example of what footage from the 60s should look like in your opinion?
I take it you are a human being with sensors, right? I'm pretty sure you can tell clear footage from terrible footage.
Look at film footage of nice clear skies and surroundings, the take a look at ALL the so called footage of supposed launches of rockets and such like, then ask yourself why that footage is always crap.
I'm not arguing against you, I'm arguing the crap footage, so why not take a good look yourself.
I am not arguing against you. I am asking you to provide footage from 1960 that you would consider to be good.
The footage rottingroom provided of the World Series seemed about on par with the launch footage wouldn't you agree?
I'm not just talking about 1960's launch footage. I'm talking about all of it, right up to present day. Why is it as crap as ever?
A comparison of shuttle launches to world series footage through the years:
2011
Discovery launch
(http://)
Game 6 of World Series
(http://)
1985
Challenger Launch
(http://)
World Series
(http://)
1970
Atlas Missile Launch
(http://)
World Series
(http://)
In each case, the world series footage looks to be of slightly better quality. This is exactly what I would expect of a comparison between the footage of a TV broadcasting company and NASA.
Why would you expect it to be better from a TV broadcasting company than NASA. Are you saying that NASA can't afford the experts that TV companies have and have far less superior video equipment? Come on Rama, you can do better than that.
Because TV companies specialize in TV, and NASA specializes in space exploration. The quality of the NASA footage is almost just as good. I'm actually having a hard time even saying that. To me they look the same.
Ok, fair enough. Let's just leave it at that for now. The footage seems fine to you. I disagree. We won't go too far on this, so we'll move on until such a time where something credible comes up from it.
-
Why would you expect it to be better from a TV broadcasting company than NASA. Are you saying that NASA can't afford the experts that TV companies have and have far less superior video equipment? Come on Rama, you can do better than that.
"Far less superior"? I think that is not an accurate assessment. They are pretty much the same. The 2011 WS footage is obviously a higher quality HD broadcast, which is something that NASA totally does not need, but even still NASAs footage looks good and the older stuff is exactly the same quality between the baseball and the launches.
Fair enough, as I said above. Let's just leave it at that because neither of us are going to break on this.
-
It's also pretty much common knowledge that new technologies that advance video quality and features almost always get their start with sports (and sometimes porn). Just look at the history of 3d broadcasts and the history of 1080p and more recently 4k.
The TV quality of today is fantastic. This is my point. Video cameras and even phones get excellent video footage.
When it comes to the news pushing stuff that is questionable, it always puts out terrible quality footage. This can't be denied.
-
The TV quality of today is fantastic. This is my point. Video cameras and even phones get excellent video footage.
When it comes to the news pushing stuff that is questionable, it always puts out terrible quality footage. This can't be denied.
How can you say (http://) is of questionable quality? Have yo useen it?
-
It's also pretty much common knowledge that new technologies that advance video quality and features almost always get their start with sports (and sometimes porn). Just look at the history of 3d broadcasts and the history of 1080p and more recently 4k.
The TV quality of today is fantastic. This is my point. Video cameras and even phones get excellent video footage.
When it comes to the news pushing stuff that is questionable, it always puts out terrible quality footage. This can't be denied.
Of course it can because you still have not provided any criteria or any evidence for anything you have said. In that respect it is trivially easy to deny what you have said because you basically have not said anything.
-
The TV quality of today is fantastic. This is my point. Video cameras and even phones get excellent video footage.
When it comes to the news pushing stuff that is questionable, it always puts out terrible quality footage. This can't be denied.
How can you say (http://) is of questionable quality? Have yo useen it?
Ok, right at the start, although nothing to do with quality of the picture, Take a look at rent a crowd. Are you seriously telling me that this place would have a few spectators mulling around waiting for a launch as close as that?
Think about that one.
From 0:23 seconds you see a bit crappy footage. Then it jumps to 0:36 seconds and the footage is lovely and clear. Who the hell took this footage and from what vantage point?
This one is not the best to pick apart as it doesn't actually show enough to be ripped apart. I mean, I don't even want to go into the orbit carry on with this one.
-
It's also pretty much common knowledge that new technologies that advance video quality and features almost always get their start with sports (and sometimes porn). Just look at the history of 3d broadcasts and the history of 1080p and more recently 4k.
The TV quality of today is fantastic. This is my point. Video cameras and even phones get excellent video footage.
When it comes to the news pushing stuff that is questionable, it always puts out terrible quality footage. This can't be denied.
Of course it can because you still have not provided any criteria or any evidence for anything you have said. In that respect it is trivially easy to deny what you have said because you basically have not said anything.
Oh come on Rama. If Mickey mouse was found clinging to the external tank waving at us you would say you don't find anything wrong with any footage as Mickey mouse could easily grip onto a tank like that. ;D
-
The TV quality of today is fantastic. This is my point. Video cameras and even phones get excellent video footage.
When it comes to the news pushing stuff that is questionable, it always puts out terrible quality footage. This can't be denied.
How can you say (http://) is of questionable quality? Have yo useen it?
Ok, right at the start, although nothing to do with quality of the picture, Take a look at rent a crowd. Are you seriously telling me that this place would have a few spectators mulling around waiting for a launch as close as that?
Think about that one.
From 0:23 seconds you see a bit crappy footage. Then it jumps to 0:36 seconds and the footage is lovely and clear. Who the hell took this footage and from what vantage point?
This one is not the best to pick apart as it doesn't actually show enough to be ripped apart. I mean, I don't even want to go into the orbit carry on with this one.
You have a problem with a zoomed in video clip?
-
The TV quality of today is fantastic. This is my point. Video cameras and even phones get excellent video footage.
When it comes to the news pushing stuff that is questionable, it always puts out terrible quality footage. This can't be denied.
How can you say (http://) is of questionable quality? Have yo useen it?
Ok, right at the start, although nothing to do with quality of the picture, Take a look at rent a crowd. Are you seriously telling me that this place would have a few spectators mulling around waiting for a launch as close as that?
Think about that one.
From 0:23 seconds you see a bit crappy footage. Then it jumps to 0:36 seconds and the footage is lovely and clear. Who the hell took this footage and from what vantage point?
This one is not the best to pick apart as it doesn't actually show enough to be ripped apart. I mean, I don't even want to go into the orbit carry on with this one.
We were talking about footage visual quality. Clearly you were wrong on that front.
-
Rent a crowd
You are free to go to a launch. It is not considered to be something that someone would go traveling far to witness these days. Plus, why do that when we can watch it in the comfort of our homes? It's the same reason why movie theatres are not as popular as the used to be.
0:23 seconds you see crappy footage
Unless you have bad internet, I'd say the quality at :23 seconds is pretty remarkable. We can actually the atmosphere being miraged. I see this effect on hot days regularly. It's a testament to how far we've gone in optics that we can see it recorded on camera.
-
Ok, right at the start, although nothing to do with quality of the picture, Take a look at rent a crowd. Are you seriously telling me that this place would have a few spectators mulling around waiting for a launch as close as that?
Think about that one.
It doesn't look that close to me. I'd say it's at least a kilometer away.
From 0:23 seconds you see a bit crappy footage. Then it jumps to 0:36 seconds and the footage is lovely and clear. Who the hell took this footage and from what vantage point?
That's not crappy footage. That's hot air moving around, and no camera can hide it. Besides, it's been taken from that kilometer or so away, so the zoom is very high. From 0:36 they switch to another camera, much closer to the Shuttle.
This one is not the best to pick apart as it doesn't actually show enough to be ripped apart. I mean, I don't even want to go into the orbit carry on with this one.
Oh, so you admit that you have no reason to say this video is fake? Good, maybe there is hope for you.
-
Also, when the image is miraged it seems like the camera is across the body of water in the video. Which explains why we see it in some shots but not others.
-
It's also pretty much common knowledge that new technologies that advance video quality and features almost always get their start with sports (and sometimes porn). Just look at the history of 3d broadcasts and the history of 1080p and more recently 4k.
The TV quality of today is fantastic. This is my point. Video cameras and even phones get excellent video footage.
Then why would you expect film quality from more than 50 years ago to look as good as today's video quality?
When it comes to the news pushing stuff that is questionable, it always puts out terrible quality footage. This can't be denied.
When you're filming live events, you usually have far less control over lighting and other environmental conditions that can greatly affect image quality.
-
You are free to go to a launch. It is not considered to be something that someone would go traveling far to witness these days. Plus, why do that when we can watch it in the comfort of our homes? It's the same reason why movie theatres are not as popular as the used to be.
Yeah, I mean who wants to go and watch a huge shuttle launch when you can see it on TV,eh? Are you serious? ;D
I see full football stadiums when it's on TV with people who go there every week. What a weak answer.
How about rent a crowd is there because the launches are not real. Let me tell you something. That place would scare a swarm of bees away with one bee shouting, oh my god, look at that swarm of people watching that rocket launch.
You can bet your life it would be swarming with people. Not a silly rent a crowd just mulling around like nothing is happening. Ohhhh wait....nothing is happening, apart form a big digital clock on a countdown to nothing.
-
You are free to go to a launch. It is not considered to be something that someone would go traveling far to witness these days. Plus, why do that when we can watch it in the comfort of our homes? It's the same reason why movie theatres are not as popular as the used to be.
Yeah, I mean who wants to go and watch a huge shuttle launch when you can see it on TV,eh? Are you serious? ;D
I see full football stadiums when it's on TV with people who go there every week. What a weak answer.
How about rent a crowd is there because the launches are not real. Let me tell you something. That place would scare a swarm of bees away with one bee shouting, oh my god, look at that swarm of people watching that rocket launch.
You can bet your life it would be swarming with people. Not a silly rent a crowd just mulling around like nothing is happening. Ohhhh wait....nothing is happening, apart form a big digital clock on a countdown to nothing.
A weak answer? The public is less interested now than they were when the space program started. Going to space is business as usual.
-
You are free to go to a launch. It is not considered to be something that someone would go traveling far to witness these days. Plus, why do that when we can watch it in the comfort of our homes? It's the same reason why movie theatres are not as popular as the used to be.
Yeah, I mean who wants to go and watch a huge shuttle launch when you can see it on TV,eh? Are you serious? ;D
I see full football stadiums when it's on TV with people who go there every week. What a weak answer.
How about rent a crowd is there because the launches are not real. Let me tell you something. That place would scare a swarm of bees away with one bee shouting, oh my god, look at that swarm of people watching that rocket launch.
You can bet your life it would be swarming with people. Not a silly rent a crowd just mulling around like nothing is happening. Ohhhh wait....nothing is happening, apart form a big digital clock on a countdown to nothing.
That is seriously your argument? Football games fill stadiums so rocket launches should? Well there are a few obvious reasons for that: football matches are much more unpredictable than rocket launches, making them more exciting to watch; football stadiums tend to be in cities near where people live whereas rocket launching pads tend to be far away and take a while to get to; sports are much more popular than science generally and specifically the interest in the space program has trended downwards since the Apollo moon landings.
-
You can bet your life it would be swarming with people. Not a silly rent a crowd just mulling around like nothing is happening. Ohhhh wait....nothing is happening, apart form a big digital clock on a countdown to nothing.
Umm... Scepti, do you understand how countdowns work? There really isn't much of anything for the crown to see until the clock counts down to zero.
-
You are free to go to a launch. It is not considered to be something that someone would go traveling far to witness these days. Plus, why do that when we can watch it in the comfort of our homes? It's the same reason why movie theatres are not as popular as the used to be.
Yeah, I mean who wants to go and watch a huge shuttle launch when you can see it on TV,eh? Are you serious? ;D
I see full football stadiums when it's on TV with people who go there every week. What a weak answer.
What a weak argument. More people care about sports than space, because sports have been part of human culture since forever, and they are further hyped up in the media to the point where people go nuts over them.
How about rent a crowd is there because the launches are not real. Let me tell you something. That place would scare a swarm of bees away with one bee shouting, oh my god, look at that swarm of people watching that rocket launch.
You can bet your life it would be swarming with people. Not a silly rent a crowd just mulling around like nothing is happening. Ohhhh wait....nothing is happening, apart form a big digital clock on a countdown to nothing.
Oh look, that crowd is "rented" because Sceptimatic thinks space launches are not real, therefore the crowd is rented and launches are not real. ::)
-
There are no such things as ICBM'S. There are ballistic missiles that can go up to a certain height and fall back to the ground in a arc however many miles away before the fuel is spent.
All this TV stuff where missiles fly horizontally over the sea and land, dodging mountains and what not, then home in on the target, are just that, TV fantasy.
These submarine ballistic missiles are another pile of horse manure. Ejected by air pressure from a tube and suddenly jump out of the water - ignite - and off to the target thousands of miles away. What a crock of jelly beans.
We, as people are kept scared of this stuff. We are made to feel helpless and in fear of all this stuff.
I'm sure the experts will tell me it's all real and above board as their will be some submarine captains on here or nuclear silo operatives, etc that will tell me I'm delusional.
This is when a thread should be locked.
Gone for over a month, first thread I open I'm reminded of why I stopped popping in.
-
Rockets can of course launch underwater. Rocket engines do not take oxygen from the air. They either use stored liquid oxygen or another oxidizer or use a solid fuel that is self oxidizing. This is why there are so many videos of rockets launching from underwater. Not to mention the other ways using compressed air that were mentioned. Gunpowder is self oxidizing, this is why you can shoot guns underwater.
3. Sceptic once again shows how he knows nothing about anything.
20:18 onwards. You were saying about rockets?
(http://#ws)
That agrees with what I and others have said. It does not agree with anything you said.
When the video claimed rockets can't work under water if was wrong. I'm sure the type of rocket they were showing in the video is too big to work underwater.
A video of an Estes Rocket launching underwater has already been posted.
Here's a video of a fighter jet launched from a submarine, so I guess it must be true. Don;t dare tell me that this is special effects.
(http://#)
That video is fake on purpose. It even says it in the description. Like it says, it's just a jet put over a titan missile that was launched from the water. What evidence do you have that since one video was fake on purpose every single video is fake?
You don't say? ;D
There may come a time when special effects and CGI will hit home in how your life is manipulated into accepting official lines by the use of this stuff.
Let me just put this nice and simple for you. You will deny this but I actually know for a fact this would happen.
Let's assume that the media puts out a story about the Armed forces testing out a new fighter jet. A new jet that can launch from under the water from a special submarine.
This naturally would get people like you wondering what this new jet is and will you ever see it.
A few years later after saturation coverage into your mind, they pull out the exact video of an official jet launch from a sub.
Naturally you are the rest of the ever willing people, wil, watch the video and stand back in total awe, excited about just how far we can go with technology like this.
I come along and tell you that the whole thing is one big fake. Giess what?
I am a tin foil hat conspiracy lunatic who knows nothing and that video is real. See what I'm getting at here?
If you want to read into the science that is clearly made up fantasy, that's absolutely fine...but if you are smart, you really should be questioning this stuff and trying to see it for what it really is, which is absolute gunk.
Learn the concepts and there won't be a problem. A rocket engine can work under water because of how they work. A jet engine cannot work underwater because of how they work. It's amazing how ignorant you can be.
-
Gone for over a month, first thread I open I'm reminded of why I stopped popping in.
There's a sure-fire way to avoid having to struggle through sceptimatic's bizarre blatherings...
Avoid any/all threads wherein the comments run into double figures. ;D
-
Learn the concepts and there won't be a problem. A rocket engine can work under water because of how they work. A jet engine cannot work underwater because of how they work. It's amazing how ignorant you can be.
Rest assured it isn't me that's being ignorant. You thinking a burning fuel rocket can work underwater and in space, shows how ignorant you are.
You're being lied to and it's not hard to see why for those who are willing to see it for what it is.
-
Learn the concepts and there won't be a problem. A rocket engine can work under water because of how they work. A jet engine cannot work underwater because of how they work. It's amazing how ignorant you can be.
Rest assured it isn't me that's being ignorant. You thinking a burning fuel rocket can work underwater and in space, shows how ignorant you are.
You're being lied to and it's not hard to see why for those who are willing to see it for what it is.
Scpeti, you have no right to call anyone ignorant in that subject, when you have been presented with not only diagrams of how it works, but video of it actually working, you simply deny it with your lazy cop out of "deep thinking."
If you really could articulate why we were incorrect, you would have explained why in detail ages ago.
But you can't.
-
Learn the concepts and there won't be a problem. A rocket engine can work under water because of how they work. A jet engine cannot work underwater because of how they work. It's amazing how ignorant you can be.
Rest assured it isn't me that's being ignorant. You thinking a burning fuel rocket can work underwater and in space, shows how ignorant you are.
You're being lied to and it's not hard to see why for those who are willing to see it for what it is.
I don't see how it's ignorant to believe something that is not only possible, but has been demonstrated to be possible for centuries.
Fuel can burn in the absence of air, easily. The fuel just needs to contain its own oxygen source, as in gunpowder. Bullets can fire underwater. Why couldn't rockets operate underwater?
-
Learn the concepts and there won't be a problem. A rocket engine can work under water because of how they work. A jet engine cannot work underwater because of how they work. It's amazing how ignorant you can be.
Rest assured it isn't me that's being ignorant. You thinking a burning fuel rocket can work underwater and in space, shows how ignorant you are.
You're being lied to and it's not hard to see why for those who are willing to see it for what it is.
Scpeti, you have no right to call anyone ignorant in that subject, when you have been presented with not only diagrams of how it works, but video of it actually working, you simply deny it with your lazy cop out of "deep thinking."
If you really could articulate why we were incorrect, you would have explained why in detail ages ago.
But you can't.
I've explained and better explained why it's a lie. If you haven't looked, then do so.
-
Learn the concepts and there won't be a problem. A rocket engine can work under water because of how they work. A jet engine cannot work underwater because of how they work. It's amazing how ignorant you can be.
Rest assured it isn't me that's being ignorant. You thinking a burning fuel rocket can work underwater and in space, shows how ignorant you are.
You're being lied to and it's not hard to see why for those who are willing to see it for what it is.
I don't see how it's ignorant to believe something that is not only possible, but has been demonstrated to be possible for centuries.
Fuel can burn in the absence of air, easily. The fuel just needs to contain its own oxygen source, as in gunpowder. Bullets can fire underwater. Why couldn't rockets operate underwater?
A bullet can fire underwater because of the expansion of ignited gunpowder. Trying to fire a burning fuel rocket vertically out of water is a no go. Putting one into a near vacuum is also a no go.
-
Learn the concepts and there won't be a problem. A rocket engine can work under water because of how they work. A jet engine cannot work underwater because of how they work. It's amazing how ignorant you can be.
Rest assured it isn't me that's being ignorant. You thinking a burning fuel rocket can work underwater and in space, shows how ignorant you are.
You're being lied to and it's not hard to see why for those who are willing to see it for what it is.
I don't see how it's ignorant to believe something that is not only possible, but has been demonstrated to be possible for centuries.
Fuel can burn in the absence of air, easily. The fuel just needs to contain its own oxygen source, as in gunpowder. Bullets can fire underwater. Why couldn't rockets operate underwater?
A bullet can fire underwater because of the expansion of ignited gunpowder. Trying to fire a burning fuel rocket vertically out of water is a no go. Putting one into a near vacuum is also a no go.
A rocket can fire underwater and in a vacuum because of the expansion of ignited rocket fuel. All systems are go.
-
And scepti would obviously know these things because he has so much experience experimenting with them in real life......
-
Learn the concepts and there won't be a problem. A rocket engine can work under water because of how they work. A jet engine cannot work underwater because of how they work. It's amazing how ignorant you can be.
Rest assured it isn't me that's being ignorant. You thinking a burning fuel rocket can work underwater and in space, shows how ignorant you are.
You're being lied to and it's not hard to see why for those who are willing to see it for what it is.
I don't see how it's ignorant to believe something that is not only possible, but has been demonstrated to be possible for centuries.
Fuel can burn in the absence of air, easily. The fuel just needs to contain its own oxygen source, as in gunpowder. Bullets can fire underwater. Why couldn't rockets operate underwater?
A bullet can fire underwater because of the expansion of ignited gunpowder. Trying to fire a burning fuel rocket vertically out of water is a no go. Putting one into a near vacuum is also a no go.
A rocket can fire underwater and in a vacuum because of the expansion of ignited rocket fuel. All systems are go.
Don't live your life on fantasy. Start using some common sense.
-
And scepti would obviously know these things because he has so much experience experimenting with them in real life......
Yep, you could say that.
-
Learn the concepts and there won't be a problem. A rocket engine can work under water because of how they work. A jet engine cannot work underwater because of how they work. It's amazing how ignorant you can be.
Rest assured it isn't me that's being ignorant. You thinking a burning fuel rocket can work underwater and in space, shows how ignorant you are.
You're being lied to and it's not hard to see why for those who are willing to see it for what it is.
I don't see how it's ignorant to believe something that is not only possible, but has been demonstrated to be possible for centuries.
Fuel can burn in the absence of air, easily. The fuel just needs to contain its own oxygen source, as in gunpowder. Bullets can fire underwater. Why couldn't rockets operate underwater?
A bullet can fire underwater because of the expansion of ignited gunpowder. Trying to fire a burning fuel rocket vertically out of water is a no go. Putting one into a near vacuum is also a no go.
A rocket can fire underwater and in a vacuum because of the expansion of ignited rocket fuel. All systems are go.
Don't live your life on fantasy. Start using some common sense.
Right back at you. (Notice how this argument doesn't get you anywhere.)
-
A bullet can fire underwater because of the expansion of ignited gunpowder. Trying to fire a burning fuel rocket vertically out of water is a no go. Putting one into a near vacuum is also a no go.
Scepti, first of all, sub launched missiles do not burn underwater. Compressed air pushes the rocket out of the water where the rocket ignites. Secondly, a rocket can burn underwater or in a vacuum because it carries its own air supply, generally in the form of liquid oxygen. Why are these two basic concepts so hard for you to understand? What kind of evidence will it take for you to finally accept them?
Don't live your life on fantasy. Start using some common sense.
One man's fantasy is another man's common sense.
-
Rest assured it isn't me that's being ignorant. You thinking a burning fuel rocket can work underwater and in space, shows how ignorant you are.
You're being lied to and it's not hard to see why for those who are willing to see it for what it is.
Do you know that both of the metals magnesium and sodium burn under water sceptimatic? Nope? Oh dear, so much for not using Wiki or Google eh?
Although I must say that I'm not surprised as you seem to mistakenly think that nothing can burn under water LOL.
-
A bullet can fire underwater because of the expansion of ignited gunpowder. Trying to fire a burning fuel rocket vertically out of water is a no go. Putting one into a near vacuum is also a no go.
Scepti, first of all, sub launched missiles do not burn underwater. Compressed air pushes the rocket out of the water where the rocket ignites. Secondly, a rocket can burn underwater or in a vacuum because it carries its own air supply, generally in the form of liquid oxygen. Why are these two basic concepts so hard for you to understand? What kind of evidence will it take for you to finally accept them?
Don't live your life on fantasy. Start using some common sense.
One man's fantasy is another man's common sense.
The sooner you realise why a rocket carries it's own oxygen supply the sooner you will realise how they actually do work.
Let me just explain, see if you can grasp it.
Imagine filling a rocket with just fuel, it would simply fall out of the rocket and ignite into a complete mess of a fire ball.
Adding oxygen to it allows the fuel to be forced out into a controlled fast burn, allowing it to super heat the atmosphere and create a huge void that causes the atmosphere to squeeze the rocket up by immediately filling that.
The oxygen in the rocket only serves the purpose of rocing out the ignited fuel.
-
Rest assured it isn't me that's being ignorant. You thinking a burning fuel rocket can work underwater and in space, shows how ignorant you are.
You're being lied to and it's not hard to see why for those who are willing to see it for what it is.
Do you know that both of the metals magnesium and sodium burn under water sceptimatic? Nope? Oh dear, so much for not using Wiki or Google eh?
Although I must say that I'm not surprised as you seem to mistakenly think that nothing can burn under water LOL.
Lots of things burn underwater. Rockets in terms of ignited fuel for thrust will not work.
-
Rest assured it isn't me that's being ignorant. You thinking a burning fuel rocket can work underwater and in space, shows how ignorant you are.
You're being lied to and it's not hard to see why for those who are willing to see it for what it is.
Do you know that both of the metals magnesium and sodium burn under water sceptimatic? Nope? Oh dear, so much for not using Wiki or Google eh?
Although I must say that I'm not surprised as you seem to mistakenly think that nothing can burn under water LOL.
Lots of things burn underwater. Rockets in terms of ignited fuel for thrust will not work.
Sure they will, even according to you:
The sooner you realise why a rocket carries it's own oxygen supply the sooner you will realise how they actually do work.
Let me just explain, see if you can grasp it.
Imagine filling a rocket with just fuel, it would simply fall out of the rocket and ignite into a complete mess of a fire ball.
Adding oxygen to it allows the fuel to be forced out into a controlled fast burn, allowing it to super heat the atmosphere water and create a huge void that causes the atmosphere water to squeeze the rocket up by immediately filling that.
The oxygen in the rocket only serves the purpose of rocing out the ignited fuel.
-
Rest assured it isn't me that's being ignorant. You thinking a burning fuel rocket can work underwater and in space, shows how ignorant you are.
You're being lied to and it's not hard to see why for those who are willing to see it for what it is.
Do you know that both of the metals magnesium and sodium burn under water sceptimatic? Nope? Oh dear, so much for not using Wiki or Google eh?
Although I must say that I'm not surprised as you seem to mistakenly think that nothing can burn under water LOL.
Lots of things burn underwater. Rockets in terms of ignited fuel for thrust will not work.
Sure they will, even according to you:
The sooner you realise why a rocket carries it's own oxygen supply the sooner you will realise how they actually do work.
Let me just explain, see if you can grasp it.
Imagine filling a rocket with just fuel, it would simply fall out of the rocket and ignite into a complete mess of a fire ball.
Adding oxygen to it allows the fuel to be forced out into a controlled fast burn, allowing it to super heat the atmosphere water and create a huge void that causes the atmosphere water to squeeze the rocket up by immediately filling that.
The oxygen in the rocket only serves the purpose of rocing out the ignited fuel.
Oh, so you think rocket fuel will simply super heat the water to create a voide enough for a rocket to fly? Hahahaha.
You have a lot to learn.
-
Rest assured it isn't me that's being ignorant. You thinking a burning fuel rocket can work underwater and in space, shows how ignorant you are.
You're being lied to and it's not hard to see why for those who are willing to see it for what it is.
Do you know that both of the metals magnesium and sodium burn under water sceptimatic? Nope? Oh dear, so much for not using Wiki or Google eh?
Although I must say that I'm not surprised as you seem to mistakenly think that nothing can burn under water LOL.
Lots of things burn underwater. Rockets in terms of ignited fuel for thrust will not work.
Sure they will, even according to you:
The sooner you realise why a rocket carries it's own oxygen supply the sooner you will realise how they actually do work.
Let me just explain, see if you can grasp it.
Imagine filling a rocket with just fuel, it would simply fall out of the rocket and ignite into a complete mess of a fire ball.
Adding oxygen to it allows the fuel to be forced out into a controlled fast burn, allowing it to super heat the atmosphere water and create a huge void that causes the atmosphere water to squeeze the rocket up by immediately filling that.
The oxygen in the rocket only serves the purpose of rocing out the ignited fuel.
Oh, so you think rocket fuel will simply super heat the water to create a voide enough for a rocket to fly? Hahahaha.
You have a lot to learn.
No, that's what you think, according to how your own description of how a rocket works in air. Why would it be any different it water, according to you?
-
Lots of things burn underwater. Rockets in terms of ignited fuel for thrust will not work.
So if I fabricate a small rocket using powdered aluminium, sulphur and magnesium, you're claiming I can't fire it underwater?
And think carefully before you answer this.
-
Lots of things burn underwater. Rockets in terms of ignited fuel for thrust will not work.
So if I fabricate a small rocket using powdered aluminium, sulphur and magnesium, you're claiming I can't fire it underwater?
And think carefully before you answer this.
You won't launch it into the sky from under the water.
-
You won't launch it into the sky from under the water.
And why do you say this exactly? Have you tried this experiment yourself? And assuming you have (in order to denounce it so strongly) how did you utilise the three materials, and what did you use for your rocket casing? BTW, what purpose does the powdered aluminium serve?
-
You won't launch it into the sky from under the water.
And why do you say this exactly? Have you tried this experiment yourself? And assuming you have (in order to denounce it so strongly) how did you utilise the three materials, and what did you use for your rocket casing? BTW, what purpose does the powdered aluminium serve?
What do you mean what purpose does it serve?
We are talking about rockets taking off from under water. We don't need to go into stuff like thermite and what not. We are talking about moving a ballistic missile from under water into the sky.
We are told that compressed air shoots the missile out of the water, then the rocket burn kicks in and off it goes.
Some videos show this happening.
Other videos show the rocket coming out of the water already ignited.
I'm telling you right now that neither can happen in how we are shown.
Not a hope in hell are you going to get a 20 odd foot long ballistic missile through 120 feet of water by air pressure to jump out of the sea, then to ignite and on it's merry way.
Not a hope in hell.
-
Not a hope in hell are you going to get a 20 odd foot long ballistic missile through 120 feet of water by air pressure to jump out of the sea, then to ignite and on it's merry way.
Not a hope in hell.
I wasn't asking you about full-sized rockets. I was asking you questions specifically about a little home-made rocket anybody can make in their backyard with only cheap, simple gear. And launch from underwater, and which will travel at least 20 metres into the air.
I'm refuting your claim that you can't launch a rocket from underwater. You're wrong. Simple as that. Sorry.
-
Learn the concepts and there won't be a problem. A rocket engine can work under water because of how they work. A jet engine cannot work underwater because of how they work. It's amazing how ignorant you can be.
Rest assured it isn't me that's being ignorant. You thinking a burning fuel rocket can work underwater and in space, shows how ignorant you are.
You're being lied to and it's not hard to see why for those who are willing to see it for what it is.
Scpeti, you have no right to call anyone ignorant in that subject, when you have been presented with not only diagrams of how it works, but video of it actually working, you simply deny it with your lazy cop out of "deep thinking."
If you really could articulate why we were incorrect, you would have explained why in detail ages ago.
But you can't.
I've explained and better explained why it's a lie. If you haven't looked, then do so.
I have looked. Your answers are:
1. "I had a deep think about this..."
2. "Its bullshit."
3. "I have already answered the question."
None of those answers are scientific, nor have you come up with a counter to demonstrable evidence that anyone can perform in their own back yard.
I trust my eyes, my experiences, and demonstrable science more than I trust your "deep think."
-
Let me just explain, see if you can grasp it.
Imagine filling a rocket with just fuel, it would simply fall out of the rocket and ignite into a complete mess of a fire ball.
Adding oxygen to it allows the fuel to be forced out into a controlled fast burn, allowing it to super heat the atmosphere and create a huge void that causes the atmosphere to squeeze the rocket up by immediately filling that.
The oxygen in the rocket only serves the purpose of rocing out the ignited fuel.
??? Scepti, are you saying that fuel can burn without oxygen? Last I knew, fire needs 3 things: fuel, heat and oxygen. Are you saying that this is not true?
-
Let me just explain, see if you can grasp it.
Imagine filling a rocket with just fuel, it would simply fall out of the rocket and ignite into a complete mess of a fire ball.
Adding oxygen to it allows the fuel to be forced out into a controlled fast burn, allowing it to super heat the atmosphere and create a huge void that causes the atmosphere to squeeze the rocket up by immediately filling that.
The oxygen in the rocket only serves the purpose of rocing out the ignited fuel.
??? Scepti, are you saying that fuel can burn without oxygen? Last I knew, fire needs 3 things: fuel, heat and oxygen. Are you saying that this is not true?
Well he won't admit it now that you told him what is needed to make fire. It's always more fun to just ask the question initially so that we can see what he says.
-
By now, everybody will have noted that sceptimatic never responded to my little story about making a home-made "rocket" that anybody (except sceptimatic himself probably LOL) can make in their backyard. And launch from underwater, and propel 20m or so into the air.
It's more than obvious by the nature of his posts here that he has virtually no comprehension of the principles of jet propulsion. His "understanding" of basic physics would make a high-schooler blush.
-
This non-response from sceptimatic again proves that when confronted with any sort of legitimate scientific problem that he can't address, he simply disappears from the thread, never to be seen again.
So... I stand by my claim that sceptimatic has absolutely no idea of rocket and/or jet engine technology. If he had, he would've asked me how I manged to carry out my little experiment with my homemade "rocket". But he didn't. Which tells me a lot.
-
Septic read this and weep.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VA-111_Shkval (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VA-111_Shkval)
-
Septic read this and weep.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VA-111_Shkval (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VA-111_Shkval)
Good link.
But I'm guessing that as sceptimatic's final comment in this thread was: "Not a hope in hell are you going to get a 20 odd foot long ballistic missile through 120 feet of water by air pressure to jump out of the sea, then to ignite and on it's merry way. Not a hope in hell" there's very little likelihood of him reading through it.
He has all the evidence he needs: Not a hope in hell. And he says it twice just to prove the point. ;D