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

  • 174 Replies
  • 21536 Views
?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 22970
Re: USA did never try an ICBM with a conventional warhead in any war
« Reply #90 on: July 28, 2014, 05:37:00 AM »
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.

Re: USA did never try an ICBM with a conventional warhead in any war
« Reply #91 on: July 28, 2014, 05:51:48 AM »
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.

Quote
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.
You did not ask me for logic.  You asked for my opinion. - Jroa

Re: USA did never try an ICBM with a conventional warhead in any war
« Reply #92 on: July 28, 2014, 06:23:14 AM »
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.

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 22970
Re: USA did never try an ICBM with a conventional warhead in any war
« Reply #93 on: July 28, 2014, 07:47:15 AM »
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.

*

sokarul

  • 16209
  • Discount Chemist
Re: USA did never try an ICBM with a conventional warhead in any war
« Reply #94 on: July 28, 2014, 05:34:16 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?
Sokarul

ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

Run Sandokhan run

?

rottingroom

  • 4785
  • Around the world.
Re: USA did never try an ICBM with a conventional warhead in any war
« Reply #95 on: July 28, 2014, 05:53:17 PM »
By the way.......

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

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.

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 22970
Re: USA did never try an ICBM with a conventional warhead in any war
« Reply #96 on: July 29, 2014, 06:00:17 AM »


 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.

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 22970
Re: USA did never try an ICBM with a conventional warhead in any war
« Reply #97 on: July 29, 2014, 06:01:47 AM »
By the way.......

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

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.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 38590
Re: USA did never try an ICBM with a conventional warhead in any war
« Reply #98 on: July 29, 2014, 06:09:30 AM »
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.
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.

?

rottingroom

  • 4785
  • Around the world.
Re: USA did never try an ICBM with a conventional warhead in any war
« Reply #99 on: July 29, 2014, 06:40:26 AM »
By the way.......

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

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?

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 22970
Re: USA did never try an ICBM with a conventional warhead in any war
« Reply #100 on: July 29, 2014, 07:52:49 AM »
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?

?

Shmeggley

  • 1909
  • Eppur si muove!
Re: USA did never try an ICBM with a conventional warhead in any war
« Reply #101 on: July 29, 2014, 08:09:26 AM »

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

?

rottingroom

  • 4785
  • Around the world.
Re: USA did never try an ICBM with a conventional warhead in any war
« Reply #102 on: July 29, 2014, 08:14:32 AM »
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?

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

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 22970
Re: USA did never try an ICBM with a conventional warhead in any war
« Reply #103 on: July 29, 2014, 08:47:55 AM »
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?

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

*

Rama Set

  • 6877
  • I am also an engineer
Re: USA did never try an ICBM with a conventional warhead in any war
« Reply #104 on: July 29, 2014, 08:51:22 AM »
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?

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">
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.
Aether is the  characteristic of action or inaction of charged  & noncharged particals.

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 22970
Re: USA did never try an ICBM with a conventional warhead in any war
« Reply #105 on: July 29, 2014, 09:00:44 AM »
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?

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

?

rottingroom

  • 4785
  • Around the world.
Re: USA did never try an ICBM with a conventional warhead in any war
« Reply #106 on: July 29, 2014, 09:05:41 AM »
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?

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

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 22970
Re: USA did never try an ICBM with a conventional warhead in any war
« Reply #107 on: July 29, 2014, 09:11:43 AM »
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?

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

*

Rama Set

  • 6877
  • I am also an engineer
Re: USA did never try an ICBM with a conventional warhead in any war
« Reply #108 on: July 29, 2014, 09:16:22 AM »
Can you at least provide an example of what footage from the 60s should look like in your opinion? 
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 #109 on: July 29, 2014, 09:17:14 AM »
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?

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

?

rottingroom

  • 4785
  • Around the world.
Re: USA did never try an ICBM with a conventional warhead in any war
« Reply #110 on: July 29, 2014, 09:19:10 AM »
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.

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

Doesn't seem to be much better or worse than the Navy video to me.

Re: USA did never try an ICBM with a conventional warhead in any war
« Reply #111 on: July 29, 2014, 09:42:44 AM »
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?

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">
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.
You did not ask me for logic.  You asked for my opinion. - Jroa

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 22970
Re: USA did never try an ICBM with a conventional warhead in any war
« Reply #112 on: July 29, 2014, 09:51:09 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.

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 22970
Re: USA did never try an ICBM with a conventional warhead in any war
« Reply #113 on: July 29, 2014, 09:54:13 AM »


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.

*

Rama Set

  • 6877
  • I am also an engineer
Re: USA did never try an ICBM with a conventional warhead in any war
« Reply #114 on: July 29, 2014, 09:55:39 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?
Aether is the  characteristic of action or inaction of charged  & noncharged particals.

*

Rama Set

  • 6877
  • I am also an engineer
Re: USA did never try an ICBM with a conventional warhead in any war
« Reply #115 on: July 29, 2014, 09:57:42 AM »


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

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 22970
Re: USA did never try an ICBM with a conventional warhead in any war
« Reply #116 on: July 29, 2014, 09:58:44 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?

?

rottingroom

  • 4785
  • Around the world.
Re: USA did never try an ICBM with a conventional warhead in any war
« Reply #117 on: July 29, 2014, 10:01:17 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?

What parts of it are giving you the opinion that it is crappy?

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 22970
Re: USA did never try an ICBM with a conventional warhead in any war
« Reply #118 on: July 29, 2014, 10:06:56 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?

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.

Re: USA did never try an ICBM with a conventional warhead in any war
« Reply #119 on: July 29, 2014, 10:10:47 AM »
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.

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">
I have yet to see evidence that Lunar Eclipses even exist.  Have you ever seen one?