USA did never try an ICBM with a conventional warhead in any war

  • 174 Replies
  • 24280 Views
*

Rama Set

  • 6877
  • I am also an engineer
Re: USA did never try an ICBM with a conventional warhead in any war
« Reply #120 on: July 29, 2014, 10:12:48 AM »
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

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">

Game 6 of World Series

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">

1985

Challenger Launch

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">

World Series

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">

1970

Atlas Missile Launch

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">

World Series

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">

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.
Aether is the  characteristic of action or inaction of charged  & noncharged particals.

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 23256
Re: USA did never try an ICBM with a conventional warhead in any war
« Reply #121 on: July 29, 2014, 10:38:27 AM »
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

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">

Game 6 of World Series

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">

1985

Challenger Launch

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">

World Series

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">

1970

Atlas Missile Launch

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">

World Series

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">

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.

?

rottingroom

  • 4785
  • Around the world.
Re: USA did never try an ICBM with a conventional warhead in any war
« Reply #122 on: July 29, 2014, 10:41:24 AM »
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

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">

Game 6 of World Series

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">

1985

Challenger Launch

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">

World Series

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">

1970

Atlas Missile Launch

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">

World Series

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">

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.

*

Rama Set

  • 6877
  • I am also an engineer
Re: USA did never try an ICBM with a conventional warhead in any war
« Reply #123 on: July 29, 2014, 10:50:18 AM »
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.
Aether is the  characteristic of action or inaction of charged  & noncharged particals.

?

rottingroom

  • 4785
  • Around the world.
Re: USA did never try an ICBM with a conventional warhead in any war
« Reply #124 on: July 29, 2014, 10:55:41 AM »
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.

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 23256
Re: USA did never try an ICBM with a conventional warhead in any war
« Reply #125 on: July 29, 2014, 11:24:22 AM »
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

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">

Game 6 of World Series

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">

1985

Challenger Launch

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">

World Series

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">

1970

Atlas Missile Launch

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">

World Series

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">

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.

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 23256
Re: USA did never try an ICBM with a conventional warhead in any war
« Reply #126 on: July 29, 2014, 11:25:38 AM »
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.

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 23256
Re: USA did never try an ICBM with a conventional warhead in any war
« Reply #127 on: July 29, 2014, 11:27:45 AM »
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.

Re: USA did never try an ICBM with a conventional warhead in any war
« Reply #128 on: July 29, 2014, 11:31:58 AM »
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 " class="bbc_link" target="_blank"> is of questionable quality? Have yo useen it?
I have yet to see evidence that Lunar Eclipses even exist.  Have you ever seen one?

*

Rama Set

  • 6877
  • I am also an engineer
Re: USA did never try an ICBM with a conventional warhead in any war
« Reply #129 on: July 29, 2014, 11:34:03 AM »
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.
Aether is the  characteristic of action or inaction of charged  & noncharged particals.

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 23256
Re: USA did never try an ICBM with a conventional warhead in any war
« Reply #130 on: July 29, 2014, 11:53:44 AM »
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 " class="bbc_link" target="_blank"> 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.

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 23256
Re: USA did never try an ICBM with a conventional warhead in any war
« Reply #131 on: July 29, 2014, 11:56:09 AM »
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


Re: USA did never try an ICBM with a conventional warhead in any war
« Reply #132 on: July 29, 2014, 11:59:28 AM »
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 " class="bbc_link" target="_blank"> 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?

*

Rama Set

  • 6877
  • I am also an engineer
Re: USA did never try an ICBM with a conventional warhead in any war
« Reply #133 on: July 29, 2014, 12:01:21 PM »
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 " class="bbc_link" target="_blank"> 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.
Aether is the  characteristic of action or inaction of charged  & noncharged particals.

?

rottingroom

  • 4785
  • Around the world.
Re: USA did never try an ICBM with a conventional warhead in any war
« Reply #134 on: July 29, 2014, 12:04:47 PM »
Quote from: sceptimatic
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.


Quote from: sceptimatic
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.

Re: USA did never try an ICBM with a conventional warhead in any war
« Reply #135 on: July 29, 2014, 12:05:15 PM »
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.
I have yet to see evidence that Lunar Eclipses even exist.  Have you ever seen one?

?

rottingroom

  • 4785
  • Around the world.
Re: USA did never try an ICBM with a conventional warhead in any war
« Reply #136 on: July 29, 2014, 12:06:47 PM »
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.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 39040
Re: USA did never try an ICBM with a conventional warhead in any war
« Reply #137 on: July 29, 2014, 12:38:47 PM »
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?

Quote
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.
« Last Edit: July 29, 2014, 12:40:57 PM by markjo »
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 23256
Re: USA did never try an ICBM with a conventional warhead in any war
« Reply #138 on: July 29, 2014, 12:51:31 PM »


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.

?

rottingroom

  • 4785
  • Around the world.
Re: USA did never try an ICBM with a conventional warhead in any war
« Reply #139 on: July 29, 2014, 12:59:15 PM »


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.

*

Rama Set

  • 6877
  • I am also an engineer
Re: USA did never try an ICBM with a conventional warhead in any war
« Reply #140 on: July 29, 2014, 01:00:29 PM »


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.
Aether is the  characteristic of action or inaction of charged  & noncharged particals.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 39040
Re: USA did never try an ICBM with a conventional warhead in any war
« Reply #141 on: July 29, 2014, 01:03:27 PM »
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. 
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

?

Shmeggley

  • 1909
  • Eppur si muove!
Re: USA did never try an ICBM with a conventional warhead in any war
« Reply #142 on: July 29, 2014, 01:06:15 PM »


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.

Quote
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. ::)
Giess what? I am a tin foil hat conspiracy lunatic who knows nothing... See what I'm getting at here?

Re: USA did never try an ICBM with a conventional warhead in any war
« Reply #143 on: July 29, 2014, 01:27:06 PM »
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.

*

sokarul

  • 16706
  • Discount Chemist
Re: USA did never try an ICBM with a conventional warhead in any war
« Reply #144 on: July 29, 2014, 04:32:58 PM »


 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?

#ws" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">
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.

#" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">
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.
Sokarul

ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

Run Sandokhan run

*

ausGeoff

  • 6091
Re: USA did never try an ICBM with a conventional warhead in any war
« Reply #145 on: July 30, 2014, 12:26:01 PM »

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


?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 23256
Re: USA did never try an ICBM with a conventional warhead in any war
« Reply #146 on: July 30, 2014, 12:51:30 PM »

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.

*

Socratic Amusement

  • 636
  • An Exercise in Witty Exploration
Re: USA did never try an ICBM with a conventional warhead in any war
« Reply #147 on: July 30, 2014, 01:05:45 PM »

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.
"As for me, all I know is that I know nothing."

?

Shmeggley

  • 1909
  • Eppur si muove!
Re: USA did never try an ICBM with a conventional warhead in any war
« Reply #148 on: July 30, 2014, 01:09:43 PM »

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?
Giess what? I am a tin foil hat conspiracy lunatic who knows nothing... See what I'm getting at here?

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 23256
Re: USA did never try an ICBM with a conventional warhead in any war
« Reply #149 on: July 30, 2014, 01:16:46 PM »

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.