Intercontinental ballistic missile

Quote from: Stash on February 28, 2019, 09:53:52 AM

Good. So what does 'heavy' mean? What's the cut off on weight? When does the atmosphere no longer allow a rocket to push against it because of its weight no matter the thrust or fuel capacity?

I don't know what the cut off rate would be. All I'm saying is, those rockets that supposedly go to space are not real working rockets like we are told. That's my belief.
Let's just agree to disagree on this bit because you will still believe they can throw 3000 tonne rockets into the sky at super speeds. I can't help you with that. You need to help yourself with that by escaping from mainstream brainwashing like I did.

Let's make this a bit more clear.
Those supposed rockets are apparently thin skinned tubes with supposed massive engines stuck on the bottom, plus engines so far up the body and again further up.
All this and big tanks holding fuel all stood upright on a launch pad resting on something. What?

Then the engines ignite and throw out thrust of such mental proportions that somehow arse kick this big tube into the sky at speeds beyond comprehension of reality and it's basically swallowed by the sci-fi fans.

How in the hell can I help anyone understand those rockets are gimmicks if they're willing to accept this nonsense?

By all means come back at me with " ohhh but you don't know the calculations for how they can work"......neither do you. You just know of a set of calculations that are put out in order to make it seem feasible.
By all means argue it but my stance is solid.

Beyond your comprehension.
I again assert that you are not smart.

You could help your cause by explaining what causes pressure in air.
You could provide some info other than a lot of hand waving.
You could answer any of jackbs questions.
You could go back to denP trhead and answer any of the 1000pg of questions.

Quote from: Stash on March 01, 2019, 12:14:05 AM

But I said, for the sake or argument, they stay in the atmosphere. Space doesn't exist in your model so it's atmosphere or nothing. Unless your dome gets in the way - How high is your dome? Maybe it's a non-issue. We're talking ICBM's. Using your model why wouldn't ICBM's work if they stay in the atmosphere? What specifically in your model prevents them doing what they do as long as they have atmosphere to push off of?

Ok, first of all you've seen what an ICBM is supposed to look like to achieve its so called objectives, which is what the initial's portray. Inter continental ballistic missile.
It's basically saying that this lump of metal tube and fuel, plus warhead can go from one continent to another. Basically they tell us they can travel 5/6/7/8/9 or whatever thousands of miles to a target.

Now think how that could be achieved?

I'm trying to work within your model.

Let's picture the silo shenanigans.
The missile exits the silo and goes ballistic. This means it would literally have to go into extreme low pressure of atmosphere but would have to go high enough in an arc to actually travel to its destination which, as we are told, could be 10,000 miles away.

It has no means of navigation. It has no wings and some don't even have fins, yet we are told a navigation control inside will do the job. It's nonsense just on this note.
However, we are talking extreme low pressure or what you people call, a vacuum.
Now bear in mind that Felix the pretend space jumper was apparently at 128,000 feet in what we were told was as close to a vacuum as to be called a vacuum as his supposed 800 mph free fall apparently proved.

The thing is, what height would your big missile have to reach, bearing in mind it would have to arc consistently to be able to land on its target.
Like throwing a ball to your target. You know you have to arc it to reach that target, so theoretically speaking you'd have to arc the rocket to 5000 miles to the peak of its arc height for it to then travel the remaining 5000 miles to arc into its target.

There's no big wings and stabilisers on some of these things and no zilly little gadget inside is going to change anything like that on something of this apparent size.
Even a silly gimbal would destroy something like this by making it so unstable.
It would be like trying to balance a big stick on your finger with the first 6 inches of it made of lead and on a ball joint as you try to balance it.

How do you know it's extreme low pressure up there? Because you believe the 'proof' from a Red Bull stunt? For all we know, your dome could be 10,000 miles high? You don't know. For all you know, there could be plenty of atmosphere for a rocket to arc 5000 miles high.

Basically the missiles are good sci-fi but that's all they are.
There's a valid reason why small rockets burn their fuel in short order. You see, ballistic is a fuel killer because you are trying to negotiate ever decreasing pressure by thrusting against ever decreasing pressure.

The bigger rockets have the same issue.

The massive rockets that we are shown on TV in the propaganda stakes and space race stakes, are gimmicks and cannot even be fuelled in the way we are told, never mind get off the ground.

But do you know what?
That's my point of view. As for you; feel free to keep yours and good luck to you if you want to hold onto it and accept that everything is above board as a far as you're concerned. I seriously have no issues with you or that thought process.
After all, we were all brought up on it, including myself and if I was still in the frame of mind not to question this kind of stuff, I'd probably be arguing in favour of the mainstream figures, for no other reason than...well...it's authority....it's experts....right?

That's what we are reliant on. I just don't accept it as that for very valid reasons from my side.

But you haven't presented any valid reasons why not. In your model, as long a rocket stays in the atmosphere and has enough fuel, it's good to go. If you want to talk guidance systems and how they work, sure. But that really doesn't have anything to do with your model around stacking. If you want to talk about fuel to weight ratios, sure. But that really doesn't have anything to do with your model around stacking either. For all intents and purposes ICBMs work in your model as long as they stay in the atmosphere.

Quote from: Stash

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 28, 2019, 11:17:25 PM

Let's make this a bit more clear.
Those supposed rockets are apparently thin skinned tubes with supposed massive engines stuck on the bottom, plus engines so far up the body and again further up.
All this and big tanks holding fuel all stood upright on a launch pad resting on something. What?

Then the engines ignite and throw out thrust of such mental proportions that somehow arse kick this big tube into the sky at speeds beyond comprehension of reality and it's basically swallowed by the sci-fi fans.

How in the hell can I help anyone understand those rockets are gimmicks if they're willing to accept this nonsense?

By all means come back at me with " ohhh but you don't know the calculations for how they can work"......neither do you. You just know of a set of calculations that are put out in order to make it seem feasible.
By all means argue it but my stance is solid.

You must have a cut off in your model or you have no argument at all. Can a 10 pound rocket work in your model? A 100 pound? 1000 pound? 10,000 pound? Just saying, 3000 tonne rocket, no way, doesn't pass muster. At a minimum for your model you should be way more exacting in your argument. You can't refute anything unless you know the limitations.

So again, what specifically in your model prevents them doing what they do as long as they have atmosphere to push off of?

I don't know the cut off point.
All I can say, as far as my mindset goes on it is, the massive rockets are gimmicks. They are not what is portrayed to us as being.

It's not just about what they can push against, it's about the fuel they can store and hold structurally whilst achieving super speed.
If you want to believe 3000 tonnes seems viable to you then you fill your boots.

Well you should have at least some idea of a cut off. Otherwise you have a massive hole in your model. And you at least have to come up with some semblance of where you draw the line on fuel-structure-speed, etc and why. Just saying you have a 'mindset' leaves another massive hole in your model. You have no clue what the atmosphere is at various altitudes, you have no idea how high your dome is. So you can't really run around precluding the existence of something when it could actually work just fine in your model.

So we'll keep it simple, what's preventing a V2 from rocketing 200 miles in your model? Seems like nothing is.

That's my belief.

If it is just your belief then keep it to yourself rather than repeatedly asserting it as a fact.

How in the hell can I help anyone understand those rockets are gimmicks if they're willing to accept this nonsense?

By actually explaining what is wrong with them and providing an alternative explanation of how they work which is actually justified and explained rather than just continually ridiculing and misrepresenting them.

Quote from: JackBlack on February 28, 2019, 12:23:37 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 28, 2019, 05:57:25 AM

For rockets to work in the way we are told is to play sci-fi, because that's all they would ever be,

Again, WHY?

Why what?

Do you know how to read?
The context was quite clear.
I directly quoted a comment of yours and asked why.
Why would these rockets only ever be sci fi?

You are yet to justify that in any way and instead just repeatedly assert it.

Now think how that could be achieved?

It has already been explained and you are yet to show any problem.

It has no means of navigation.

Its means of navigation has been explained to you. You ignoring that doesn't magically mean it has no means.
They typically have gimbals nozzles. This allows them to change the angle of their thrust.
This allows them to change direction, i.e. navigate.

The thing is, what height would your big missile have to reach, bearing in mind it would have to arc consistently to be able to land on its target.

No it wouldn't need to arc consistently.

Like throwing a ball to your target.

No. It is nothing like that.
A ball has no method of propulsion and no method of controlling its direction.

Even a silly gimbal would destroy something like this by making it so unstable.

Again, so far all you have done is just baselessly assert that. You are yet to show it in any way.

There's a valid reason why small rockets burn their fuel in short order. You see, ballistic is a fuel killer because you are trying to negotiate ever decreasing pressure by thrusting against ever decreasing pressure.

Again, only in your delusional fantasy land.
In reality, that reduced pressure just makes it easier as there is less resistance.

That's what we are reliant on.

No, that is what you pretend we are reliant upon. Plenty of people have evidence and understanding which shows your claims regarding magically needing air are completely wrong, and that physics actually works like these authorities claim, and thus can work out for themselves that rockets would work.

I just don't accept it as that for very valid reasons from my side.

You have no valid reasons.
You have pathetic ridicules and baseless assertions.

I don't know the cut off point.

Then you have no basis to say a 3000 tonne rocket can't work. You have no basis to say it is above the cutoff point.

Now again, can you justify your claim that everything needs air for motion?

Quote from: Stash on March 01, 2019, 12:14:05 AM

But I said, for the sake or argument, they stay in the atmosphere. Space doesn't exist in your model so it's atmosphere or nothing. Unless your dome gets in the way - How high is your dome? Maybe it's a non-issue. We're talking ICBM's. Using your model why wouldn't ICBM's work if they stay in the atmosphere? What specifically in your model prevents them doing what they do as long as they have atmosphere to push off of?

Ok, first of all you've seen what an ICBM is supposed to look like to achieve its so called objectives, which is what the initial's portray. Inter continental ballistic missile.
It's basically saying that this lump of metal tube and fuel, plus warhead can go from one continent to another. Basically they tell us they can travel 5/6/7/8/9 or whatever thousands of miles to a target.

Now think how that could be achieved?

Let's picture the silo shenanigans.
The missile exits the silo and goes ballistic. This means it would literally have to go into extreme low pressure of atmosphere but would have to go high enough in an arc to actually travel to its destination which, as we are told, could be 10,000 miles away.

They certainly "have to go into extreme low pressure of atmosphere" with the maximum altitude being about 2000 km but why is that a problem?

It has no means of navigation. It has no wings and some don't even have fins, yet we are told a navigation control inside will do the job. It's nonsense just on this note.

Let's stop right there! They do have means of navigation and can be steered at the launch phase.
ICBMs have no wings but the re-entry vehicles can be steered by rockets or by fins after reaching the atmosphere.
Modern ICBMs commonly have multiple war-heads (MIRVs) that can be directed to separate targets often using on-board radar.

Quote from: zork on February 26, 2019, 09:28:02 AM

 I have actual, physical and demonstrable evidence, that is enough. You don't have anything except your speculations. Talk, talk, talk, talk.... and same talk all these years. Nothing new, no progress and no any demonstrable or physical evidence.

What physical evidence do you have?

I gave you one earlier. And others have shown you multiple other evidence. But you... Talk, talk, talk, talk.... and same talk all these years. Nothing new, no progress and no any demonstrable or physical evidence. I guess I go to hibernation soon but I predict with 100% accuracy that when I come back and look at that thread after some time, months, year, more years, etc, you are exactly in same place. Nothing new, no progress and no any demonstrable or physical evidence. Just talk.

I have no issue with a burn under water. The water is a resistance to the effects of the burn of the powder and oxy.

You're not helping yourself by using a water burn.
We are talking about the rocket using NOTHING as a resistance to its ejected mass of fuel and oxy, remember.
Let's stick with that.

So, can you accept that rockets can burn without an external source of oxygen?

Quote from: The_Heeter on February 26, 2019, 08:11:19 AM

A few silos? There are at least 50 you can go to and see the inside of. What do you mean "Set alarm bells ringing?" Care to explain how any of that is unreal? Many of the "Models" are just that... recreations of what was actually used. Often times they are scaled down so you can see the small details.

So I can go and see at least 50 of these but they are scaled down.
Tell me what you mean by scaled down compared to what they were supposedly once were.

Quote from: The_Heeter

This is often done with the larger space going rockets because they couldn't possibly fit them in most locations. I know they are real because everything they say is backed by mounds of EVIDENCE, which is something you are sorely lacking.

Mounds of evidence that you've physically seen, right?

Quote from: The_Heeter

You've not yet sited a shred of evidence, you've just denied and denied. I could provide hours, probably even days worth of video evidence, not to mention millions of pages of data.

Ok so you can provide a lot of video evidence and data.
I can provide you with days worth of video on the star ship enterprise and much of the star wars space vehicles, including data for how they work and such like.
I can delve right in and find you all kinds of video and data on a lot of stuff pertaining to this type.
Does this make it real or am I being stupid because we all know this is sci-fi, because it tells us it is?

But because your videos and books do not say sci-fi, it has to be accepted as real, right?

Quote from: The_Heeter

And yes, some of the silos are just holes in the ground. That's because they could be launched remotely from another, larger facility. You can see EVIDENCE that there were rockets in them through the videos of them launching, pictures of them on the inside, ETC. Sure there may have been other things going on, such as labs and research stations, but that's really not uncommon. missile silos were incredibly secure, so its not hard to fathom other research going on at the same time.

Just holes in the ground. A big so called ICBM from a hole in the ground. No venting and an easy launch with the so called hundreds of thousands of pounds worth of thrust just happening inside this hole.
Really?

Quote from: The_Heeter

I do often look past the "Clear and utter nonsense" and wonder what if the government was lying to us? Then I realize that it would be pretty much impossible for that to be pulled off.

Impossible to be pulled off?
 compartmentalisation?
Plausible deniability?
We all don't have access to sky eyes.
We all don't have access to overlooking countries by magnification of them from outside or inside what rules them.
We are reliant on a little screen spewing pictures/videos under narration... and tabloids, plus radio broadcasts.
a massive percentage of what you watch on TV is acting. You know this.
You also know that news is sold to you as propaganda in many cases. If you don;t know this then I can understand why everything is true to you.
If you follow this train of thought then nothing anyone can say to you will change your stance on what you scoff on the platter offered up by mainstream.

Quote from: The_Heeter

It would require every scientist, world leader, government official and governing body to have the exact same story, same data, same backing EVIDENCE, same everything. Think about that... the U.S. government can't get along for five minutes, and many countries hate each other.

Here a video. Watch it and think of every gang as a government of a country all getting together to control their turf and the overall people of the world.
Because this is basically what we're dealing with.

Look past the fiction of the video and replace it with world leaders. Think of Cyrus being one of the elite.

Quote from: The_Heeter

Why would they even attempt to collude on something like this? It would be a perfect weapon for-say- North Korea, to break the egg on this whole issue. We would lose all credibility. The only reason they haven't done something of the sort, is because there is no such thing.

There's a reason why nobody is getting nuked.

You misunderstood what I meant. There are at least 50 silos you can go to and you can even see the insides of them. What I meant bu models are the models of spacecraft and such inside museums. What I mean by models is that they are models... There are only so many examples that have actually been to space so the rest are naturally models. For instance, there's a space shuttle in practically every space museum even though only 6 were built. In order to show how they worked, the museum most likely had a smaller, more detailed model built for their museum.

Yes, mounds of evidence I have seen, and even touched. I have gotten to touch rocks from the moon as well as parts of space craft.

You don't seem to understand what video evidence is. It's not sci-fi, it's not Photoshop or CGI, its real video evidence. You can easily tell CGI from real video just by watching closely. Obviously, Star-trek enterprise is not reality. As good a show as it is, it is just a show. You can't just deny video evidence by saying "Its fake." if its fake, PROVE IT! you've yet to even attempt to prove a single thing you've said. All you have done is denied my evidence, and put forth the "It's Fake" argument without any proof.

Launch a model rocket in a tube. Notice that it works just fine. Now scale it up, and you have a silo missile launch.

Please define "Sky Eyes"

I know most of what is on T.V. is just acting, which is why I don't watch it. However, I'm basing all of the information I believe off of what I have seen in person, live broadcasts, and experiments I have either seen performed or performed myself.

Yes, it would be practically impossible. Think about it like this. If the Government really wanted to pull the wool over every bodies eyes, why would they let this site exist? Why would they let the Flat Earth Society exist in general. If there was a legitimate danger of them losing control, why wouldn't they just off the whole community? Obviously, because there is no reason for them to be worried.

The only reason North Korea didn't nuke us was because their nuclear program never managed to get far enough to make a capable missile. They did multiple tests, all of which ended poorly for them.

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 28, 2019, 11:17:25 PM

That's my belief.

If it is just your belief then keep it to yourself rather than repeatedly asserting it as a fact.

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 28, 2019, 11:17:25 PM

How in the hell can I help anyone understand those rockets are gimmicks if they're willing to accept this nonsense?

By actually explaining what is wrong with them and providing an alternative explanation of how they work which is actually justified and explained rather than just continually ridiculing and misrepresenting them.

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 28, 2019, 11:19:05 PM

Quote from: JackBlack on February 28, 2019, 12:23:37 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 28, 2019, 05:57:25 AM

For rockets to work in the way we are told is to play sci-fi, because that's all they would ever be,

Again, WHY?

Why what?

Do you know how to read?
The context was quite clear.
I directly quoted a comment of yours and asked why.
Why would these rockets only ever be sci fi?

You are yet to justify that in any way and instead just repeatedly assert it.

Quote from: sceptimatic on March 01, 2019, 01:00:47 AM

Now think how that could be achieved?

It has already been explained and you are yet to show any problem.

Quote from: sceptimatic on March 01, 2019, 01:00:47 AM

It has no means of navigation.

Its means of navigation has been explained to you. You ignoring that doesn't magically mean it has no means.
They typically have gimbals nozzles. This allows them to change the angle of their thrust.
This allows them to change direction, i.e. navigate.

Quote from: sceptimatic on March 01, 2019, 01:00:47 AM

The thing is, what height would your big missile have to reach, bearing in mind it would have to arc consistently to be able to land on its target.

No it wouldn't need to arc consistently.

Quote from: sceptimatic on March 01, 2019, 01:00:47 AM

Like throwing a ball to your target.

No. It is nothing like that.
A ball has no method of propulsion and no method of controlling its direction.

Quote from: sceptimatic on March 01, 2019, 01:00:47 AM

Even a silly gimbal would destroy something like this by making it so unstable.

Again, so far all you have done is just baselessly assert that. You are yet to show it in any way.

Quote from: sceptimatic on March 01, 2019, 01:00:47 AM

There's a valid reason why small rockets burn their fuel in short order. You see, ballistic is a fuel killer because you are trying to negotiate ever decreasing pressure by thrusting against ever decreasing pressure.

Again, only in your delusional fantasy land.
In reality, that reduced pressure just makes it easier as there is less resistance.

Quote from: sceptimatic on March 01, 2019, 01:00:47 AM

That's what we are reliant on.

No, that is what you pretend we are reliant upon. Plenty of people have evidence and understanding which shows your claims regarding magically needing air are completely wrong, and that physics actually works like these authorities claim, and thus can work out for themselves that rockets would work.

Quote from: sceptimatic on March 01, 2019, 01:00:47 AM

I just don't accept it as that for very valid reasons from my side.

You have no valid reasons.
You have pathetic ridicules and baseless assertions.

Quote from: sceptimatic on March 01, 2019, 01:00:47 AM

I don't know the cut off point.

Then you have no basis to say a 3000 tonne rocket can't work. You have no basis to say it is above the cutoff point.

Now again, can you justify your claim that everything needs air for motion?

Once again TLDR the discussion divulges into
scepti: nuh-uh.
Jackb: uh-huh

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 28, 2019, 06:06:51 AM

I have no issue with a burn under water. The water is a resistance to the effects of the burn of the powder and oxy.

You're not helping yourself by using a water burn.
We are talking about the rocket using NOTHING as a resistance to its ejected mass of fuel and oxy, remember.
Let's stick with that.

So, can you accept that rockets can burn without an external source of oxygen?

Nope, not at all.

You misunderstood what I meant. There are at least 50 silos you can go to and you can even see the insides of them.

Ok then, explain what you saw when you went inside one of them, from climbing down the silo and into the tunnels to the big vaults where they press the buttons, as we are shown....etc.
Obviously you must have went in without having to climb down the silo's. There must have been an entrace, right?
Anyway I'll look forward to your detailed explanation from your own typing hands and mind. No copy and no copy/paste.

What I meant bu models are the models of spacecraft and such inside museums. What I mean by models is that they are models... There are only so many examples that have actually been to space so the rest are naturally models. For instance, there's a space shuttle in practically every space museum even though only 6 were built. In order to show how they worked, the museum most likely had a smaller, more detailed model built for their museum.

Yes, mounds of evidence I have seen, and even touched. I have gotten to touch rocks from the moon as well as parts of space craft.

So all the big models you touch including so called moon rock is legitimate because you were told they were....right?
So moon rocks are on show outside of sealed containers, right?

Somehow by touching models and looking inside, you just know it's all real...right?

You don't seem to understand what video evidence is. It's not sci-fi, it's not Photoshop or CGI, its real video evidence. You can easily tell CGI from real video just by watching closely.

So called space shuttle launch.

Armageddon shuttle launches...start at 2:50.
Tell me which are real or is one real and one fake or are both fake?

If one is fake and one is real, what makes the one that is real, real and what makes the one that is fake, fake?

Obviously, Star-trek enterprise is not reality. As good a show as it is, it is just a show. You can't just deny video evidence by saying "Its fake." if its fake, PROVE IT! you've yet to even attempt to prove a single thing you've said. All you have done is denied my evidence, and put forth the "It's Fake" argument without any proof.

How do you know it's not real?
If you believe all the other stuff is real, why not this one?

Launch a model rocket in a tube. Notice that it works just fine. Now scale it up, and you have a silo missile launch.

Bury a tube into the ground, deep down and launch your rocket from that tube.

Once you do this I want you to imagine that little rocket being a so called super large ICBM launched from a tube underground.

I know most of what is on T.V. is just acting, which is why I don't watch it. However, I'm basing all of the information I believe off of what I have seen in person, live broadcasts, and experiments I have either seen performed or performed myself.

What have you seen in person that absolutely nails solid a reality for you?
Things that don't cut it are things like, models in museums and empty holes in the ground.
I want something concrete. Something that is utter personal and physical proof for you.
 

Yes, it would be practically impossible. Think about it like this. If the Government really wanted to pull the wool over every bodies eyes, why would they let this site exist? Why would they let the Flat Earth Society exist in general. If there was a legitimate danger of them losing control, why wouldn't they just off the whole community? Obviously, because there is no reason for them to be worried.

The majority of people follow the mainstream narrative. Many people who can be bothered to argue for it will do so by mimicking what mainstream media put out for them to mimic.
Then there will be paid shills at every turn to ensure that any free thinking person or group are merely ridiculed. It's so easy to do and those at the top are in no hurry to shut down a bunch of people who don't follow a narrative of mainstream.

When those at the top need to shut people down who garner bigger interest than is deemed acceptable, they will be shut down and most likely shut up for good, or merely ridiculed to the point of self destruction in job and life.

Maybe, eh?
Or do you know better?

The only reason North Korea didn't nuke us was because their nuclear program never managed to get far enough to make a capable missile. They did multiple tests, all of which ended poorly for them.

If you've ironed all this out with Kim then maybe that's what it is. If you haven't then what are you basing it on?

You see, all we can do is speculate on everything unless we know for sure and none of us know for sure.
You and your group stand on your given pedestals playing along with what's easiest to argue for, which clearly is mainstream ideals.
It puts you in a very strong position in terms of stand fast mass opinion but places you at the very bottom of the strength of mind stance, because all your work is done for you.

That's why I respect free thinkers. They're the real strong characters.
Believe nothing and question everything, until you're 100% sure.

It's easy to prove that cruise missiles don't exist. There are NO websites where you can book a cruise on a cruise missile. If I'm wrong, show me a link please.

Quote from: The_Heeter

You don't seem to understand what video evidence is. It's not sci-fi, it's not Photoshop or CGI, its real video evidence. You can easily tell CGI from real video just by watching closely.

So called space shuttle launch.

Armageddon shuttle launches...start at 2:50.
Tell me which are real or is one real and one fake or are both fake?

If one is fake and one is real, what makes the one that is real, real and what makes the one that is fake, fake?

That’s an easy question to answer, some research that literally would have taken you seconds to find the answer.. 

The film crew used  their own Panavision film cameras, mounted into the launch pad's camera system. The Criterion collection DVD for Armageddon includes commentary from Joe Allen and director of photography. Joe Allen addresses if a dual shuttle launch is possible and the camera man addresses the hurdles involved in filming a real launch.  The vibration from the launches nearly destroyed their Panavision cameras, they were shaken so badly every part of them was loosened and needed repaired.

They filmed the Columbia launch during the day, using it as a backdrop, and dress rehearsal for a night time launch of Atlantis. The daytime shots at the pad with the actors were shot during the launch prep of Columbia.  According to actor interviews, NASA pad techs on Columbia stopped work for a staggering four minutes so Michael Bay could film Bruce and Ben "entering" the side.

The only cgi in the videos of the launches are they added the x-71 orbiters to the top of the rockets post production.  The two launch pads are literally just copies of real launches set next to each other.  The movie was the second Hollywood movie to use real launch footage of the shuttle.  The actors were filmed around the actual shuttle on the pad but were never allowed inside the shuttle.

They were hiding nothing in the making of those shots.  The documentary shows how they did it, with interview from the actors, director, even some NASA technicians and an astronaut.   The shuttle and the oil rig are real, one of the only movie crews to be allowed into the active launch pad to utilize their own cameras to make a Hollywood movie. After the launch scenes, you’ll notice a dramatic change in the images as they do add a lot of obvious cgi.

That's why I respect free thinkers. They're the real strong characters.
Believe nothing and question everything, until you're 100% sure.

Translation: Armchair conspiracy theorists who never do any actual experimentation, or thorough investigation to discover anything, let alone the truth.  The 100% sure part comes very late in the analyzation when they realize they were completely, utterly, wrong about everything. But in the mean time, they are free thinkers! Free to perform mental gymnastics and score themselves perfect 10s while surrounding themselves with like-minded conspiracists in their shared alternate reality.

Quote from: Teslaite on March 01, 2019, 04:57:04 AM

So, can you accept that rockets can burn without an external source of oxygen?

Nope, not at all.

Then how do they burn underwater?

Armageddon shuttle launches...start at 2:50.
Tell me which are real or is one real and one fake or are both fake?

You are aware footage from NASA is in the public domain and can and has been used for movies.
Are you aware real shuttle launch footage can be found in movies including Armageddon?
Are you aware sometimes movies go out and film things rather than just having CGI?
So what makes the Armageddon one fake?
Can you provide anything, or are you only capable of dismissing it as fake.

What will you claim next, all the people in Armageddon aren't really people and instead are just crappy fake CGI?

Then there will be paid shills at every turn

And more insane speculation from you.

How about you stop with the baseless assertions and start defending your claims?
You claim everything needs air to move, i.e. for the second law to hold.
How about you start proving it.
Explain what the air does that allows it to happen for any force and why it can't happen without the air.

Quote from: The_Heeter on March 01, 2019, 07:03:43 AM

You misunderstood what I meant. There are at least 50 silos you can go to and you can even see the insides of them.

Ok then, explain what you saw when you went inside one of them, from climbing down the silo and into the tunnels to the big vaults where they press the buttons, as we are shown....etc.
Obviously you must have went in without having to climb down the silo's. There must have been an entrace, right?
Anyway I'll look forward to your detailed explanation from your own typing hands and mind. No copy and no copy/paste.

Quote from: The_Heeter

What I meant bu models are the models of spacecraft and such inside museums. What I mean by models is that they are models... There are only so many examples that have actually been to space so the rest are naturally models. For instance, there's a space shuttle in practically every space museum even though only 6 were built. In order to show how they worked, the museum most likely had a smaller, more detailed model built for their museum.

Yes, mounds of evidence I have seen, and even touched. I have gotten to touch rocks from the moon as well as parts of space craft.

So all the big models you touch including so called moon rock is legitimate because you were told they were....right?
So moon rocks are on show outside of sealed containers, right?

Somehow by touching models and looking inside, you just know it's all real...right?

Quote from: The_Heeter

You don't seem to understand what video evidence is. It's not sci-fi, it's not Photoshop or CGI, its real video evidence. You can easily tell CGI from real video just by watching closely.

So called space shuttle launch.

Armageddon shuttle launches...start at 2:50.
Tell me which are real or is one real and one fake or are both fake?

If one is fake and one is real, what makes the one that is real, real and what makes the one that is fake, fake?

Quote from: The_Heeter

Obviously, Star-trek enterprise is not reality. As good a show as it is, it is just a show. You can't just deny video evidence by saying "Its fake." if its fake, PROVE IT! you've yet to even attempt to prove a single thing you've said. All you have done is denied my evidence, and put forth the "It's Fake" argument without any proof.

How do you know it's not real?
If you believe all the other stuff is real, why not this one?

Quote from: The_Heeter

Launch a model rocket in a tube. Notice that it works just fine. Now scale it up, and you have a silo missile launch.

Bury a tube into the ground, deep down and launch your rocket from that tube.

Once you do this I want you to imagine that little rocket being a so called super large ICBM launched from a tube underground.

Quote from: The_Heeter

I know most of what is on T.V. is just acting, which is why I don't watch it. However, I'm basing all of the information I believe off of what I have seen in person, live broadcasts, and experiments I have either seen performed or performed myself.

What have you seen in person that absolutely nails solid a reality for you?
Things that don't cut it are things like, models in museums and empty holes in the ground.
I want something concrete. Something that is utter personal and physical proof for you.
 

Quote from: The_Heeter

Yes, it would be practically impossible. Think about it like this. If the Government really wanted to pull the wool over every bodies eyes, why would they let this site exist? Why would they let the Flat Earth Society exist in general. If there was a legitimate danger of them losing control, why wouldn't they just off the whole community? Obviously, because there is no reason for them to be worried.

The majority of people follow the mainstream narrative. Many people who can be bothered to argue for it will do so by mimicking what mainstream media put out for them to mimic.
Then there will be paid shills at every turn to ensure that any free thinking person or group are merely ridiculed. It's so easy to do and those at the top are in no hurry to shut down a bunch of people who don't follow a narrative of mainstream.

When those at the top need to shut people down who garner bigger interest than is deemed acceptable, they will be shut down and most likely shut up for good, or merely ridiculed to the point of self destruction in job and life.

Maybe, eh?
Or do you know better?

Quote from: The_Heeter

The only reason North Korea didn't nuke us was because their nuclear program never managed to get far enough to make a capable missile. They did multiple tests, all of which ended poorly for them.

If you've ironed all this out with Kim then maybe that's what it is. If you haven't then what are you basing it on?

You see, all we can do is speculate on everything unless we know for sure and none of us know for sure.
You and your group stand on your given pedestals playing along with what's easiest to argue for, which clearly is mainstream ideals.
It puts you in a very strong position in terms of stand fast mass opinion but places you at the very bottom of the strength of mind stance, because all your work is done for you.

That's why I respect free thinkers. They're the real strong characters.
Believe nothing and question everything, until you're 100% sure.

I've not been inside a silo myself, however you can see multiple videos online... wait I'll just stop myself there because no matter what I say you'll just say its fake without any evidence. I'm beginning to think that in the many posts you've made you have never brought up any real evidence. You tell me to provide concrete evidence, yet provide none of your own. This is the type of hypocrisy that has plagued this place for a while now.

You and I both know Star-Trek is fake and that line is nothing but a straw-man. Other people have already responded to the space shuttle launch, so I'll save my breath. Not like you'll believe anything I say anyway.

You didn't answer my question. Why wouldn't the government just silence you entirely?

I'm basing it off of the fact that we not only didn't get nuked, but that they tried and failed multiple times to make a functional missile. They didn't go far enough, didn't work entirely, or they got destroyed before they were finished.

My challenge to you: DISPROVE anything I have said. I get the feeling you'll find it hard. And when I say disprove, I don't mean deny, I mean show me something that says "This is fake"