The Russians MUCH MORE ADVANCED!? (LONG!!) MUST READ

Originally posted by mbkennel
I'm pretty skeptical. If this were true, then

a) what is the physics?

Without commenting about physics itself i am sure you can agree that physics as we understand it today is not just a refinement of physics as we understood it one hundred years ago but in some aspects is completely contrary to what the community believed about it...

b) why didn't the USSR win in Afghanistan?

Why isn't the USA winning in Afghanistan or Iraq? What does 'winning' have to do with technology?

It certainly wasn't because of morality or human rights issues. After all, they left booby-trapped *children's toys* scattered about to maim and kill curious young boys.

You should know better than to perpetuate the very same rumor that is spread, and believed by many, about US sub munitions ( from cluster bombs, etc) and anti personal mines!

There never has been validated proof of these claims and the Russians had as much to gain from such a practice as they US would...

Stellar

No disrespect here but i just love how there are americans on here who post "i'm really worried about this, please debunk this"...

All this shows is a severe in ability to actually realise all the rubbish your fed by the MSM and Hollywood about how you are the most advanced nation on the planet.

If you guys are powerful, others are too...there is no question, money doesnt buy you this tech, it helps but having the brains to figure it out doesnt really cost much, and we all know that the Russians and Europeans are pretty clever...as illustrated by Einstien, Tesla etc...

Originally posted by StellarX

Originally posted by mbkennel
I'm pretty skeptical. If this were true, then

a) what is the physics?

Without commenting about physics itself i am sure you can agree that physics as we understand it today is not just a refinement of physics as we understood it one hundred years ago but in some aspects is completely contrary to what the community believed about it...

The physics that we understand it today is different from what it was 100 years ago, but it is a refinement of physics from 50 years ago.

b) why didn't the USSR win in Afghanistan?

Why isn't the USA winning in Afghanistan or Iraq? What does 'winning' have to do with technology?

OK, maybe I"ll be more clear. The USA deployed all technology that it could other than nuclear weapons in Afghanistan and Iraq. If there were some magic superphysics I'd expect it to be used.

Yet, as Khrushchev unrolled some details, he made it clear that he was not being a bit impractical. "Our air force and navy," said Khrushchev, waving a stubby finger at his listeners, "have lost their previous importance. Their arms are not being reduced but replaced. We have cut down and we shall even discontinue the manufacture of bombers; already our armed forces have to a considerable extent shifted to rocket and nuclear arms. The proposed reduction will in no way reduce the firepower of our armed forces, and this is the main point. . . Soviet scientists have made it possible to equip our army with weapons hitherto unknown to man."

Is there any evidence this is something other than guided rockets with nuclear warheads?

In 1960, especially for somebody who wasn't that smart like Kruschchev, these were hitherto unknown to man.

its from a blog and everyones got their panties in a bunch???
Something struck me about the author and here is his self written bio page....sounds like the bio of a bunch of ats members actually.

thetruthnews.info...

Originally posted by milkyway12
Calling all ATSers to come in and investigate this issue and put some one's mind at rest! This has me very worried!

Please reply with information of any kind , research anything. I would like this Debunked or Figured out just how much of a threat this is in reality.

I will look into this and post when I've done appropriate research. The Russians do have some technologies better then the US, but from everything I've heard or seen we are ahead in most, but not all areas. There are comments made about "scaler"technology etc that just do not make sense to me. Then again even when I had TS/SCI/SCA clearance you only get to know about what you need to. Plus, disclosing certain information even if we know about it can reveal sources and methods, the "family jewels"so to speak. I have been involved in a wide range of highly compartmented and classified projects, but will reserve judgement until I check.

First, is your title for the post a question or emphasized?
So I reviewed all the links you provided. Technologies of this caliber could be possible. I've yet to find any sources that show any physics or mathematical proof that these weapons could be CONTROLLED. Creating intense magnetic fields to destroy is viable, but realistically controlled/focused to an object anywhere in the world is extraordinarily difficult.
Most of these claims, in regards to Elipton weapon, come from an extremist, racist, short fused idiot Zhirinovsky. To me he'd say just about anything to make Russia more powerful than they are. He's too open lipped to speak any sense to what Russian scientists are really capable of. Russia has some of the smartest scientists in the world., and are capable of creating weapon that could decimate in many different forms of energy, no argument there. But to create a weapon that could destroy the Columbia Space shuttle with out our knowledge is complete lunacy! And without us reacting to this?
Some of these claims are realistic, but to say they are the only ones with the knowledge is false. Russia, US, and other allies acquired some very dangerous technology and scientists with the fall of the Nazi's. And was able to further that technology into many different forms in the time since.
We do live in a very dangerous time in history, and if just a grain of this evidence is true, than we should all fear for humanity. With the ability to create, manipulate, and alter such things a gravity and atoms comes at a huge cost, for the user and receiver. One thing to remember about these forms of weapons, is that failures DO happen. If they are creating and focusing gamma rays into weapons, just one failure will not just destroy the weapon, any one or thing surrounding it.
I believe that these weapons could be possible, but a what cost.

Originally posted by mbkennel
The physics that we understand it today is different from what it was 100 years ago, but it is a refinement of physics from 50 years ago.

And as the article points out the weapons, well the weapons i am trying to discuss, were already in testing or in use 50 years ago and the physics they are based on is thus rather older than a century. Contrary to popular belief 'scientific' breakthrough more often than not has nothing to do with 'breaking through' as much as it has to , over decades, batter down the unscientific notions of it's era. My reading strongly suggest that breakthroughs are the exception and that our scientific knowledge normally progresses at about the rate at which the defenders of the current paradigms die of old age or are otherwise replaced in their positions of power.

OK, maybe I"ll be more clear. The USA deployed all technology that it could other than nuclear weapons in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Far from it. There are vast areas of technology that have simply not been introduced to use in the US military, and other armed forces, as it would be either tremendously expensive, would not yield much profit for the military industrial complex in question or would undermine the force structure itself . Do you know that the large majority of soldiers serving in harms ways in Iraq and Afghanistan went there with personal protective wear&technology dating from the Vietnam era? This may not seem like a big deal given the fascination American military enthusiasts have with large bombs but the current US armed forces is as conservative as such forces normally is with no great hint of high tech thought or high tech means; battlefields today resemble those of the second world war mostly because the conceptual basis is exactly the same.

If there were some magic superphysics I'd expect it to be used.

How? Against who? How should one employ weapons that can change the weather or set of earthquakes against Iraq or Afghanistan? And why do you use the word super thereby presuming that there is anything but physics that is not yet understood by humanity or by most of it?

Is there any evidence this is something other than guided rockets with nuclear warheads?

In 1960, especially for somebody who wasn't that smart like Kruschchev, these were hitherto unknown to man.

The question of nuclear tipped ICBM's were an engineering one ever since the Germans started raining rockets on London back in 44' and the US dropped the bombs on Japan a year later. Admittedly that is not the greatest span of time but it's going on a generation of scientist and rather enough time for the Soviet academy of sciences to be able to inform the premier about what was to be regarded as scientific breakthroughs and what was not. Admittedly this was the time when the USSR were fast moving to try offset America's strategic dominance by trying to build up their ICBM forces so you're analysis is how that speech is commonly understood.

I just believe that it's not the full story and that he was in fact being led to believe, by advisers, that the USSR were on the verge of being able to deploy a new class of weaponry.

Stellar

These superpowers sure have interest in building weapons of mass destruction so they can have power and control over others. I can't even influence my kids to get their heads on straight let alone control them. Maybe I need some magnetic zapper or something

On the off chance that your being serious here...

Originally posted by rickymouse
These superpowers sure have interest in building weapons of mass destruction so they can have power and control over others. I can't even influence my kids to get their heads on straight let alone control them. Maybe I need some magnetic zapper or something

Sadly violence&terror 'works' in the sense that if your willing to keep applying it you can largely get your way until, for one reason or another, you fail to do so. If your willing to 'zap' the child to guide it's actions while it's young your local, state or federal government will be more than happy to take over the job, with bigger zappers and all, when you grow tired or when you no longer seem very intimidating to your child.... State schooling also plays a very significant role here so if children turn out to be undisciplined and contemptuous of authority the state power is for one reason or another not serving it's own ends.

Personally i think WOMD is a great thing as otherwise every society would have to militarize their citizenry , with predictable results for individual liberty, just to ensure that they would not fall victim to the whims of the few societies that have already done so. The possession of a huge nuclear arsenal gives fortress nations like the US a theoretical capability to largely disband their conventional forces and rely on a strong defensive navy backed up by nukes which would allow for 50-80% savings in pentagon spending. This would still allow for the maintenance of a credible conventional power threat while strongly discouraging escalation by other nuclear powers.

Stellar