Vaporizing the Bolshoi

page: 6
2
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 9 2012 @ 08:14 PM
link   
reply to post by mrwiffler
 


Not automated celestial navigation for an SLBM launched at a moment's notice from say the North Atlantic. You guys keep reiterating the question in a way.

How would one go about "solving" for star star selection, North Atlantic Mid March, midnight vs North China Sea, Early December 9 am ?

edit on 9-6-2012 by decisively because: added "one"




posted on Jun, 9 2012 @ 08:29 PM
link   

Let your imagination go



This thread is very much about being creative in a sense. We know Apollo was a cover for the American and Russian weaponization of space 1960s style, and as such, we are trying to get a feel for the details of what kinds of things they might have been doing, what programs were being developed to help the US and Soviet armed services with their surveillance, reconn, ICBM targeting/tracking/performance, dyna-sor development, MOL development.

Another idea I had today in addition to the one so far introduced; they may well have been "ranging ICBMs and SLBMs".

Check this out;

www.oosa.unvienna.org...

An intercontinental ballistic missile is a satellite that does not make it all the way around, but would benefit just as much as these birds from ranging. Look at the details of the PDF report there. You could range a missile in real time. By way of its successful targeting, you would know position, and if multiple hits were made, if it were tracked, you'd have its REFSMATT. Also, from that one PDF above;

"Products
 Terrestrial Reference Frame (Center of Mass and Scale)
 Precision Orbits and Calibration of Altimetry Missions (Oceans, Ice)
 Plate Tectonics and Crustal Deformation
 Static and Time-varying Gravity Field
 Earth Orientation and Rotation (Polar Motion, length of day)
 Total Earth Mass Distribution
 Space Science - Tether Dynamics, etc.
 Lunar Science and Relativity"

especially the PRECISION ORBIT stuff looks pretty dang tasty if one is trying to vaporize the Bolshoi.

Add that to our list of possible "projects"; ICBM/SLBM laser ranging to achieve improved targeting/tracking/performance overall.
edit on 9-6-2012 by decisively because: removed "TEXT"
edit on 9-6-2012 by decisively because: added "the" , would>might,
edit on 9-6-2012 by decisively because: , >:, spacing
edit on 9-6-2012 by decisively because: added "s"
edit on 9-6-2012 by decisively because: added period, caps
edit on 9-6-2012 by decisively because: spelling
edit on 9-6-2012 by decisively because: added semicolon
edit on 9-6-2012 by decisively because: comma



posted on Jun, 9 2012 @ 11:20 PM
link   
reply to post by decisively
 


are you saying that the launch system will not have a star chart within its programs??
are you also saying that submarines cant know their locations?

maybe you should ask your buddy "champion navigator decisively" about how much stars move.

oh o since submerged submarines cant see stars.. does this mean that the entire submarine programs are phony?? i mean.. how can they possibly navigate??



posted on Jun, 10 2012 @ 07:14 PM
link   
reply to post by decisively
 



Let your imagination go





This thread is very much about being creative in a sense.


From your end, it is all about creativity with no facts to back it up.



posted on Jun, 10 2012 @ 07:15 PM
link   
reply to post by decisively
 



How would one go about "solving" for star star selection, North Atlantic Mid March, midnight vs North China Sea, Early December 9 am ?


Better yet, you show us how this can only be done using equipment on the Moon.



posted on Jun, 11 2012 @ 12:58 AM
link   

Only once in the context of the Fish Bowl launches



It often comes as a surprise, certainly did to me, that in the history of U.S. strategic weapons development, it has only been on ONE OCCASION, the occasion of the U.S. "Fish Bowl" exercises in 1962, that a SLBM has been launched from a sub, travelled through the unimaginable cold of space and then with its warhead running the several thousand degree gauntlet of atmospheric reentry, passed back into the terrestrial realm to be exploded "on target" ?

How is it that they were and are so confident this stuff works, never tested, not all up, but once, yes ONCE ! ?

Answer; the US manned space programs have served in this capacity, to provide the requisite cover for testing. You wouldn't build this stuff without testing it now would ya' ?

As Apollo researchers, this stark fact should be in the forefront of our minds. Given the 1963 Partial Nuclear Test Ban Treaty's forbidding atmospheric warhead testing, and given the 1967 outer space treaty's forbidding the weaponization of space, and given the strategic needs of our military, to be absolutely certain our ICBMs/SLBMs flew straight and true and then BLEW in Khrushchev's bathtub or Andropov's or now Putin's, how is it the reliability of our strategic arsenal was and is not left to chance, to question ? And with respect to a matter of such grave importance, nothing of course could and can be left to chance. The equipment simply must have been tested.

This thread has as one of its very ambitious goals nothing less than elucidating how it was US Manned Space(Mercury/Gemini/Apollo/Skylab/Shuttle) figured out a way to "test" our strategic equipment and verify/demonstrate its reliability.

edit on 11-6-2012 by decisively because: spelling, added "?"
edit on 11-6-2012 by decisively because: would> wouldn't
edit on 11-6-2012 by decisively because: apostrophe, caps
edit on 11-6-2012 by decisively because: added "(Mercury/Gemini/Apollo/Skylab/Shuttle)"
edit on 11-6-2012 by decisively because: added "cover for"



posted on Jun, 11 2012 @ 02:57 AM
link   
reply to post by decisively
 



How is it that they were and are so confident this stuff works, never tested, not all up, but once, yes ONCE ! ?

Answer; the US manned space programs have served in this capacity, to provide the requisite cover for testing. You wouldn't build this stuff without testing it now would ya' ?


got a source for any of that?? why does manned mission need to be a cover for weapons testing?? why do you completely ignore the whole COLD WAR??

also

the first US missile submarine, successfully launched the first Polaris missile from a submerged submarine on July 20, 1960.


you know about ongoing development right??



posted on Jun, 11 2012 @ 05:29 AM
link   
reply to post by decisively
 



Only once in the context of the Fish Bowl launches


Only once that you know of. Now, please explain why it is necessary to have equipment on the Moon to guide SLBMs.



posted on Jun, 17 2012 @ 11:20 PM
link   

Weapons testing ? Interesting thought anyhoo…..



From Donald Beattie's, TAKING SCIENCE TO THE MOON;


One experiment, the passive seismometer left behind at the Apollo 12 landing site, did achieve important results from Apollo 13. Despite the problems the crew encountered during the rest of the mission, the Apollo 13 SIVB stage, the first programmed to strike the Moon, accomplished its job by landing some eighty-five miles from the Apollo 12 ALSEP. The seismometer received strong signals, and the impact had so much energy-estimated to be the equivalent of twelve tons of TNT (larger than the LM ascent stage impact because of its greater mass and higher velocity at impact)-that it sent seismic waves deep into the lunar crust. This elated Gary Latham, the passive seismometer PI, because he and his coinvestigators could now make some preliminary estimates about the Moon's deep structure.



posted on Jun, 19 2012 @ 11:05 PM
link   

More seismometer stuff, important possibility for my side to pursue




science.nasa.gov...

From the above;


Furthermore, shallow moonquakes lasted a remarkably long time. Once they got going, all continued more than 10 minutes. "The moon was ringing like a bell," Neal says.

On Earth, vibrations from quakes usually die away in only half a minute. The reason has to do with chemical weathering, Neal explains: "Water weakens stone, expanding the structure of different minerals. When energy propagates across such a compressible structure, it acts like a foam sponge—it deadens the vibrations." Even the biggest earthquakes stop shaking in less than 2 minutes.

The moon, however, is dry, cool and mostly rigid, like a chunk of stone or iron. So moonquakes set it vibrating like a tuning fork. Even if a moonquake isn't intense, "it just keeps going and going," Neal says. And for a lunar habitat, that persistence could be more significant than a moonquake's magnitude.


Keep in mind that none of this stuff is real. By that I mean the lunar landing aspect, that feature is not real. But what about the seismometers ? Those may be real... Did they park a set of "seismometers" up there to measure some rather robust unnatural activity ? Were the seismometers flashy cover for something else altogether ? Could they have been testing nukes on the moon ?

Recall the 1963 partial test ban treaty. What better place to go to be sure your nukes ain't dudes ?

My side should be looking into this possibility with some enthusiasm. There may well be merit to it. It is not so out there.

Recall, the only time any of our ICBMs have ever been tested was with Frigate Bird in 1962, and that was a SLBM 1200 mile launch.

They had to test these intercontinental birds and warheads someway. How did they do it ? Apollo........, "Seismometers", whatever they "really" were, may well have played a role in our weapons testing.
edit on 19-6-2012 by decisively because: ,> that
edit on 19-6-2012 by decisively because: is > were, seismometer> seismometers
edit on 19-6-2012 by decisively because: an>a



posted on Jun, 20 2012 @ 06:11 AM
link   
reply to post by decisively
 



flashy cover for something else altogether ?


No, the flash would be visible from the Earth, and the gamma radiation could be detected. By the way, here is the Apollo 13 SIVB impact crater. Discuss.




posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 12:27 PM
link   
reply to post by mrwiffler
 

This thread is not a thread with a central and specific fundamental claim as you seem to want it have mrwiffler, or you seem to presume I am suggesting should be the case



This thread's origin is a point of fact, that fact being that Apollo's fraudulence has been incontrovertibly demonstrated by way of the program's bogus medical illnesses. We know with unmitigated metaphysical certitude that Apollo was/is fraudulent based on;

1) The undeniable fact that contrary to NASA's claims, Ken Mattingly was never genuinely at risk to acquire German measles just before the flight of Apollo 13 as alleged by Apollo/NASA medical principals

2) The undeniable fact that contrary to NASA's claims, Alan Shepard's Meniere's Disease was never cured by way of a William House 1968/1969 shunt surgery

3) The undeniable fact that contrary to NASA's claims, Deke Slayton's alleged paroxysmal atrial fibrillation was not cured by way of vitamin therapy nor was it cured by way of no therapy whatsoever

4) The undeniable fact that contrary to NASA's claims, Frank Borman was never really ill in cislunar space with viral gastroenteritis during the course of Apollo 8's alleged trans lunar coast

AS ONE KNOWS ALL OF APOLLO TO BE PROVEN FRAUDULENT BASED ON THESE FACTS, AND BY FRAUDULENT HERE ONE MEANS APOLLO WAS NOT A PROGRAM WHICH SOUGHT TO AND SUCCEEDED IN LANDING MEN UPON THE SURFACE OF THE MOON, THEN ONE MAY CONCLUDE WITH UTTER CONFIDENCE THAT APOLLO WAS AN OVERT COVER FOR AMERICAN SPACE BASED MILITARY ACTIVITIES, ACTIVITIES PROSCRIBED BY WAY OF NATIONAL LAW, INTERNATIONAL LAW/TREATY, AND/OR PUBLIC/CONGRESSIONAL OPINION.

This thread begins from this point. This is our given. I do not claim to know the nature of the nefarious military activities for which Apollo covered. I know only that the activities in some general sense sought to and succeeded in weaponizing/militarizing space. The Russians had a similar program and succeeded roughly to an equivalent degree in this regard. Both countries sought to and succeeded by way of their space programs to develop then state of the art space based surveillance/reconnaissance/terrestrial locating and tracking systems, ever improving systems which aided in ICBM/SLBM tracking/targeting/performance and ever improving space shuttle and manned orbital lab type capacities. These programs were developed in part under the guise of Apollo.

This thread seeks to discover what exactly these military "hardwares and softwares" were about. What hardware was launched under the guise of Apollo ? How was said hardware "instructed" ? What was its program ? This we would like to know, and as such, this is what we workshop here in this thread. No possibility is too crazy, too out there. We give every poster's idea a fair hearing. Indeed, speculation, both conservative and wildly wild is welcome. Over time, right here in this thread, we shall come to know these realities in some not insignificant detail.

So give it a shot mrwiffler, speculate. Do you think they may have NUKED THE MOON ????? If yes, say why, if no, please favor us with your rationale for the negative answer.



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 05:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by decisively
reply to post by mrwiffler
 


This thread's origin is a point of fact, that fact being that Apollo's fraudulence has been incontrovertibly demonstrated by way of the program's bogus medical illnesses. We know with unmitigated metaphysical certitude that Apollo was/is fraudulent based on;


No, you mean your "subjective opinion without any hard proof". Get it right. That's all your threads have been, and why they are located here in Skunk Works.




1) The undeniable fact that contrary to NASA's claims, Ken Mattingly was never genuinely at risk to acquire German measles just before the flight of Apollo 13 as alleged by Apollo/NASA medical principals

2) The undeniable fact that contrary to NASA's claims, Alan Shepard's Meniere's Disease was never cured by way of a William House 1968/1969 shunt surgery

3) The undeniable fact that contrary to NASA's claims, Deke Slayton's alleged paroxysmal atrial fibrillation was not cured by way of vitamin therapy nor was it cured by way of no therapy whatsoever

4) The undeniable fact that contrary to NASA's claims, Frank Borman was never really ill in cislunar space with viral gastroenteritis during the course of Apollo 8's alleged trans lunar coast


You'll have to excuse the rest of us that doubt your medical opinion of these things, since your credibility in this area is nil based upon the fact that you've claimed to be a medical doctor of over 30 years, but have yet to prove this, and in fact have been caught posting fraudulent information in this area in previous posts.



AS ONE KNOWS ALL OF APOLLO TO BE PROVEN FRAUDULENT BASED ON THESE FACTS, AND BY FRAUDULENT HERE ONE MEANS APOLLO WAS NOT A PROGRAM WHICH SOUGHT TO AND SUCCEEDED IN LANDING MEN UPON THE SURFACE OF THE MOON, THEN ONE MAY CONCLUDE WITH UTTER CONFIDENCE THAT APOLLO WAS AN OVERT COVER FOR AMERICAN SPACE BASED MILITARY ACTIVITIES, ACTIVITIES PROSCRIBED BY WAY OF NATIONAL LAW, INTERNATIONAL LAW/TREATY, AND/OR PUBLIC/CONGRESSIONAL OPINION.


Again with the all caps. It neither proves your point, gets your point across, nor communicates with people online very well. It also goes against forum policies. Please learn to post correctly.

And no, I'm afraid you still have not proven anything. At all. What you have shown is that you do not really know nor understand the field of medicine.
All you have done here is speculate and put forth an opinion that the entire Apollo program was a hoax, based upon your faulty understanding of medicine.

What you have done is looked at a mole on the skin of someone and declared that they have skin cancer. Meaning your diagnosis is highly doubtful and incredibly obtuse.



This thread begins from this point. This is our given. I do not claim to know the nature of the nefarious military activities for which Apollo covered. I know only that the activities in some general sense sought to and succeeded in weaponizing/militarizing space. The Russians had a similar program and succeeded roughly to an equivalent degree in this regard. Both countries sought to and succeeded by way of their space programs to develop then state of the art space based surveillance/reconnaissance/terrestrial locating and tracking systems, ever improving systems which aided in ICBM/SLBM tracking/targeting/performance and ever improving space shuttle and manned orbital lab type capacities. These programs were developed in part under the guise of Apollo.


You were trashed, torn apart, burned alive basically on this subject when you brought it up before. The only thing you proved here too was that you have a very, very small knowledge of ICBM/SLBM tracking/targeting. Restating something that you were completely wrong about will not make it anymore true (except in your head of course).

Once again you have proven nothing, speculated a whole lot, and shown a complete lack of understanding in these areas, especially those that you profess to be an "expert" in.

Again: bring proof to the table, if you want to be taken more seriously by anyone.



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 06:53 PM
link   
reply to post by decisively
 



1) The undeniable fact that contrary to NASA's claims, Ken Mattingly was never genuinely at risk to acquire German measles just before the flight of Apollo 13 as alleged by Apollo/NASA medical principals


Do you know for a fact that Ken Mattingly did not have rubella as a child?


2) The undeniable fact that contrary to NASA's claims, Alan Shepard's Meniere's Disease was never cured by way of a William House 1968/1969 shunt surgery


NASA never claimed that the shunt surgery cured his Menière's Syndrome.


3) The undeniable fact that contrary to NASA's claims, Deke Slayton's alleged paroxysmal atrial fibrillation was not cured by way of vitamin therapy nor was it cured by way of no therapy whatsoever


NASA most certainly did not claim that Deke Slayton's atrial fibrillation was cured by vitamin therapy.


4) The undeniable fact that contrary to NASA's claims, Frank Borman was never really ill in cislunar space with viral gastroenteritis during the course of Apollo 8's alleged trans lunar coast


This lie has been so definitively demolished I am surprised that you continue to bring it up.

Each of these claims are a deliberate and willful distortion of the truth. Why don't you find a girlfriend like a normal 18 year old?

(Note: Decisively is welcome to back up each of his above statements. He will not, because I am being "rude" to him. Making an accurate observation is not rude, especially if the subject has devoted their life to falsehood and slander.)



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 11:55 PM
link   
Star and flag. It would be nice to get a sticky please mods. We need to bring more awareness to the Apollo conspiracy subject. I think this decisively guy might be onto something ya'll!


Hmm. Turns out delusion is satisfying. Who knew?



posted on Jun, 24 2012 @ 03:15 AM
link   
reply to post by sputniksteve
 

I believe in a broad sense sputniksteve, you misunderstand the nature of this thread



Look out over the terrain here sputniksteve. This is the highly speculative world of the Skunk Works. Uncertainty is assumed.

This thread's charge is to first of all assume it to be the case that Apollo was fraudulent. A rather easy assumption to make given Frank Borman's bout of bogus cislunar diarrhea. Translation; no assumption necessarily, it's a matter of fact, but if you'd rather assume than accept that fact, go ahead for the sake of participating here.

Now, given that fact, or very reasonable assumption if you'd prefer, what were they really up to ? If Apollo was fraudulent in the sense that they were not landing dudes on the moon, what were they using Apollo as a cover for ?

For example, it is a well known fact that Richard Nixon claimed it was a reasonable thing to cancel the Manned Orbital Lab(MOL) project because we had two space lab projects going at the time, MOL and SKYLAB. As SKYLAB persisted/was continued, and as MOL/SKYLAB/APOLLO could reasonably be viewed as connected, what might SKYLAB have been about ?

We are told that MOL was space based manned military reconnaissance that was cancelled in light of unmanned satellite reconnaissance evolving to the point of being able to do the same thing if not more. But Nixon told us that in a sense MOL and SKYLAB were the same thing, and we are not so dumb as to fall for the MOL was space based military reconnaissance line and was in a sense obsolete before it was even tried. First of all, the Russians occupied their MOL, the ALMAZ, and they were as good more or less with satellites as we were/are, so if they had a use for the manned based platform independent of satellite based reconnaissance, then so would we have, and presumably that is why we kept the MOL in its SKYLAB incarnation.

We therefore conclude there were reconnaissance tasks that were done in SKYLAB and Almaz that could not be carried out by by unmanned satellites. In addition, there may have been other tasks assigned to the men in SKYLAB, perhaps having to do with helping to create our ICBM/SLBM celestial navigation system.

SKYLAB was launched by a Saturn V. It was at least connected to Apollo by that much, but undoubtedly more. That simply has to be the case.

So sputniksteve, here in this thread, this highly speculative Skunk Works thread, we want to study SKYLAB and the Manned Orbital Lab, and the Almaz, and so forth, and in this way we may learn indirectly how Apollo may have helped to bring these systems about, and we may learn Apollo in some way covered for the nefarious military activities associated with these projects.

Ditto for Dyna-Soar, AKA the X-20, AKA the Space Shuttle. The Space Shuttle was/is no more no less than Dyna-Soar, well probably MORE, truth be told, but you get the idea. It was sorta' the same thing, hypersonic, manned, bomber, reconn, glider. Apollo covered for its development, no question, but what were the details ?

This thread is an invitation really to be creative. We all should be thinking about the possible, the edge of the possible, and Apollo's role in that edge. In a way, this should be a fun thread for those adventuresome and familiar with the military hardware of the times.

One last point about this. I sometimes wonder about Charles Townes and his lasers and his connection with NASA. He claims to have been a sort of unwilling, borderline, "OK I'll go along with it", military scientist. He claims he sort of semi-reluctantly cooperated with the military guys. But is that really credible ? At first, and for a long time, all the money for laser research came through the military. The Lick Observatory astronomers said the ONLY TIME they ever had all the money they needed/wanted for a project was when they worked with the military/NASA in building the LRRR laser. Now THAT !!!! is a revealing statement. So was Townes up to some hanky panky of his own, working with NASA ? Could Apollo have been a cover for military laser work ? I say VERY possibly.

The only way we will get at this stuff sputniksteve is to read very widely and be ultra-open minded/creative here.

Apollo as fraud is yesterday's news. We have a growing PERP LIST. To some degree, we know how they tried to fool us( LOST BIRD, phony lightning strikes, bogus medical illnesses, yadda yadda). What we'd REALLY LIKE TO GET A FEEL FOR NOW IS WHAT EXACTLY WERE THEY DOING WHILE THEY WERE PRETENDING TO LAND MEN ON THE MOON.

Of course some details may well still be national security sensitive, and that should be respected/honored. As I have said many times over the last year plus I have been doing this, I am not an absolute pacifist. I am not looking to argue we lay down our weapons. That said, we need not pretend to go to moon to defend ourselves.
edit on 24-6-2012 by decisively because: involved> a cover for, added "/creative"



posted on Jun, 24 2012 @ 03:23 AM
link   
reply to post by decisively
 



what were they using Apollo as a cover for ?


they were using the cold war to cover for the apollo mission to land man on the moon..

just like they were using the cold war to cover for their nuke testing..

you are concentrating so much on apollo that you have managed to completely ignore/miss the 10ton white elephant standing in front of you.
edit on 24-6-2012 by choos because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 24 2012 @ 06:54 AM
link   
reply to post by decisively
 



Look out over the terrain here sputniksteve. This is the highly speculative world of the Skunk Works. Uncertainty is assumed.


You seem to be unclear on what the Skunk Works is all about. It is for threads that have no anchoring in any known reality:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I post here for the benefit of those who naïvely searched Gene Krantz and landed here, thinking this thread might contain genuine information. It is about as logical as these other threads:

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Jun, 24 2012 @ 09:43 PM
link   
reply to post by decisively
 


Just out of curiosity when you reply back to my simple post with a rehash of all 15 of your threads condensed do you copy/paste or do you type it all out every time? I have noticed that you tend to make a lot of your replies basically say the same thing over and over and it gives me a head ache to think that you might have to retype it all every time. I hope for your sake you are taking some short cuts bro, otherwise carpel tunnel is in your near future I'm afraid!

Also it does appear that you are mistaken about the difference between regular forum sections, the "Grey Area", and "Skunk works". Skunk works is the least credible section available to us, short of the fiction/short story area.

Your tenacity is commendable, even if it is misguided.



posted on Jun, 25 2012 @ 01:29 AM
link   
reply to post by sputniksteve
 

"If a swimmer can remain on his rival's hip, he can be carried along in his surge………"



The great, Charles Sprawson.......

As true with swimming, so too with Apollo...........






I typed that all out. I am an EXTREMELY FAST TYPIST, LIGHTENING FAst, held a couple local records briefly, back in high school. Hence all the mistakes too , LOL..... Should slow down. Would do better to go have as fast and make no mistakes, but typing FSAT is therapeutic for me, like swimming.

Anyhoo, for the most part, I like to write things OVER. I believe I may hit on something new that way, and indeed I do hit on new angles, new perspectives, new points .

edit on 25-6-2012 by decisively because: added "FSAT"






top topics



 
2
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join