The Key to it all

It just came to me. The reason that the astronauts are inconsistent with the star stories. The ICBMs must sight stars to find their way. If one detonates a nuke or shines a laser on an ICBM the missile is blinded. I honestly feel a sense of great joy. I have solved the great mystery of the secrecy about the stars ICBMs and the astronauts. Today the history of the US and Soviet efforts in space changes epically.

reply to post by DigItLosseJam


Are you for real.......

Des

"What the f*ck are we doin out here in the middle of the desert? HELP...We need help!"

reply to post by DigItLosseJam


I read the thread title and was expecting the key to the universe and existence itself. Fooled again!

I once had "The Key" to Acuras, it would open any Acura and most Hondas

These replies crack me up.

The OP is nearly as hilarious.

That's 30 seconds of my life I will NEVER get back!
Screw you!!!!

reply to post by BacknTime




I once had The Key to some handcuffs. Unfortunately I lost it at an inopportune time.

reply to post by BacknTime


I still have *The Key* to my old metal roller skates from childhood. Does that make me smart.....

Des

reply to post by DigItLosseJam


with today's tech ICBMs have many fail safes, they can go from navigation, to preset coordinates, to remote control one doesn't lose complete control of an ICBM unless one had buzz droid technology and could dismantle missles in flight

reply to post by scorpiosin


LOL

Get me some dude!!!

'The Key To S**t All.'

There!Title Fixed!

Welcome.

I C your B M and that’s something I never want to see again…….. exactly the same as the key to my wife’s chastity belt.

Mickierocksman

reply to post by DocHolidaze


Hi DocHolidaze, nice try but no Tiparillo. The point I made was about 60s and 70s vintage technology and world events. Reading between the lines , I imagine you recognize my discovery for what it really is. I honestly am stunned.

I was at the Ray Davies concert of all places with some friends in Napa. The opening band, 88, was playing their last tune. I was sleepy and my eyes kept closing involuntarily. I kept dozing off and thought from time to time about what I had just read in the Pat Norris book "Spies in the Sky: Surveillance Satellites in War and Peace" . Norris wrote that_______________________

The CORONA satellites soon included other small cameras ("sensors" as engineers like to call them) to show the horizon and the stars to enable analysts to work out the direction that the satellite was pointing at all times and thus determine the location of objects in the images. The Soviet Zenits had a slightly different camera design involving square frames rather than a film roll, but otherwise the concept was similar. The Zenits could tilt the satellite to point the camera at a region of interest, a facility not initially available on CORONA.
.

.
Pat Norris. Spies in the Sky: Surveillance Satellites in War and Peace, 2008

The satellites are doing what the ICBMs do as well in principal. Find the horizon. Find one or more stars. Locate Lenningrad or a missile silo or a big industrial area in the context of a star and its constellation and the horizon. Then I realized how vulnerable this all was and is. It came in a flash there in the concert tonight . If there was a flash, a nuclear explosion, many of them even, a laser blast, many of them, the satellite would lose its orientation, and so too would an ICBM. 1960s vintage ICBMs were easily defeated . Shine a flashlight on one and it could not find its target. Not very well anyway.

Your point about modern ICBMs is of course invalid. It is actually off topic. Not that any of us would hold it against you. I appreciate and respect the difficult position you are now in. 1960 era ICBMs and SLBMs were much more vulnerable and much less accurate than any of us had previously imagined. The astronauts don't talk about seeing stars because for one reason, in the real world, stars would appear and disappear to pilots, depending on circumstances. But such talk in public would trigger in the minds of some questions of this type, "I know ICBMs have celestial guidance, so what happens when stars become invisible due to unfavorable circumstances such as a detonation of a warhead nearby ?"

It may be the case that so many warheads, thousands on a side, were actually NEEDED to create a blanket of bright light to blind incoming ICBMs, perhaps not. It is an interesting thought, but may not be the case in point of fact after all.

The details about all this junk at this time are not important. A simple discovery has been made demonstrating the vulnerability and inaccuracy of 60s and 70s era ICBMs. It is easy to see that these problems were the problems being studied by the American and Soviet manned space programs and their astronauts. They couldn't hit Moscow in 1969. Not easily anyway. The missile could easily lose its way en route if hit by laser light or exposed to a nuclear flash that blinded its cyclops eye.


We know why Neil Armstrong said cislunar space was a deep black, or wants us to believe that anyway. His statements on the topic are so convoluted. If stars came and went, as one would expect, now an astronaut seeing a star, conditions then changing, and so now not so, the problem with the missiles would have been recognized in 1969 and not 2012. Do away with the stars, and so Neil did, permit them only when absolutely essential, then the problem with the missiles could remain unrecognized.

I honestly never thought it would be me to make this discovery. But I did ! I saw something briefly no one else did except the bad guys.. It is a big one, incredible, and I am not nearly as well read as many of my peers. Why did this happen to me ? I expected one of my colleagues to figure this one out. I am not the best writer. I am not the best analyst. Funny how this fell to me.

Walking back home from the concert with my friends across a bridge that jumps a small river, I felt overwhelmed. We talked about Ray Davies and the KINKS, but inside, I could only think about how the star problem had now been solved. Most of my friends are unaware of my hobbying this way, It's not The Theory Relativity, but for a night I saw something very important no one else but the bad guys did. It was exhilarating. A half a dozen inside friends did call to congratulate me. I guess I will post some more, but then again, I am not sure. I feel like I have finished sort of. It is so beautiful this night.

Originally posted by minkmouse
"What the f*ck are we doin out here in the middle of the desert? HELP...We need help!"

Good quoting! I wonder what the good Hunter would've been thinking if he was still around and spent a few days reading around here......... There'd definitely be some swearing involved and probably the word "freaks" a few times. (don't mean that badly to anyone here, but Hunter didn't mince his words, and he'd almost definitely think I was a freak too.) If he gave his take on the situation properly enough he'd probably get banned in the first post.

“Coming of age in a fascist police state will not be a barrel of fun for anybody, much less for people like me, who are not inclined to suffer Nazis gladly and feel only contempt for the cowardly flag-suckers who would gladly give up their outdated freedom to live for the mess of pottage they have been conned into believing will be freedom from fear.” - Hunter S. Thompson


One of a kind.....

reply to post by DigItLosseJam


Sorry. Still not understanding what you discovered here. So Neil Armstrong never saw stars. I have my own theories on this...but your theory somehow ties to missile guidance not being accurate in the 60's?

I can assure you that it was far, far more accurate than you would believe. My family lived in Kwajalein for several years and witnessed the ICBM's approach from Kennedy, and the interceptor launch off the island and blow it up in the sky. By 1969 they had ceased allowing unauthorized individuals from watching or filming the launches. It was also around this time that they began testing the Aquila (or, so I have been told).

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
reply to post by DigItLosseJam

 

...witnessed the ICBM's approach from Kennedy, and the interceptor launch off the island and blow it up in the sky.

Not sure about Kennedy but our range sent you quite a few from out of Vandenberg over the decades.

Originally posted by robhines

Hunter didn't mince his words, and he'd almost definitely think I was a freak too.) If he gave his take on the situation properly enough he'd probably get banned in the first post.

“Coming of age in a fascist police state will not be a barrel of fun for anybody, much less for people like me, who are not inclined to suffer Nazis gladly and feel only contempt for the cowardly flag-suckers who would gladly give up their outdated freedom to live for the mess of pottage they have been conned into believing will be freedom from fear.” - Hunter S. Thompson

Gonzo journalism highly discouraged here, but much appreciated by some. Hack blogging always welcome.

Love that gif. Star for that. Thank you.

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan


Take it one step at a time mate. First of all, forget about astronauts and space and all that. Just think first of all about the ICBM guidance junk. Submarine launched and land launched ballistic missiles sight stars to find their way from Obama's house to Putin's. This was true in the 1960s as well, or so we are told. Many references indicate U.S. missiles would sight a single star, Soviet missiles would sight a pair of stars.

A missile goes up and when it finds the darkness of space it looks for a star. Once found, the star helps to guide the missile. This is a key feature of ballistic missile guidance. When they say that they can hit Putin's house with an ICBM, it is in part due to this feature of the guidance mechanism. They can't just boost a nuke packing reentry vehicle into space and expect the thing thing to coast home and be on target. SLBMs and land launched ICBMs we are told need to SEE to find Putin's house, or back in the day, Brezhnev's.

This is not something that people debate. This is how it is CLAIMED the equipment works.

Now say a Russian SLBM goes up from the north Pacific and heads toward the Trident pen there in Seatle. We may not know that yet, but that is where it wants to go. We detect the launch with our early warning equipment. The missile hits the darkness of space and according to what we know about Russian missiles, it looks for two stars. We could deny that SLBM access to one feature of its guidance system simply by making space bright along its course of flight. We can fire nukes along its course, or we can hit it with a laser. Shine a super bright laser in its cyclops eye. Now it cannot see the stars. So it can head for the Trident pen near Seattle, but it may hit Bill Gates' house instead.

This part of my discovery has nothing to do with astronauts. SLBMs and ICBMs must SEE stars to be as accurate as they are claimed to be. Star light can easily be rendered invisible by making it bright. OK ?

Part two is trickier. First of all, it is important to keep in mind the astronauts did not claim they were unable to see stars. They are however INCONSISTENT about their claims. Alan Shepard in the case of the first Mercury launch never mentioned stars. He said that he prepared to see Venus, the moon and the sun. Alan Shepard in his first flight denied the stars by way of omitting their mention. Armstrong was of course more direct. He said they did not see stars at all from the surface of the moon and that detailed constellation patterns were not seen during the coast phase to the moon. For a star to be uniquely recognized, it must be seen as a member of a group. Alan Shepard writing in the "Moonshot" book stated that stars were easily seen by moonwalkers. This statement CONTRADICTED Armstrong's and it thereby emphasizes my point, one made by many others, that the problem with astronaut comments about stars is their inconsistency. Armstrong sees no stars from the surface of the moon. Shepard says they are EASILY SEEN by moonwalkers. (This is an aside, but I have a much stronger view about these coauthors than most other ATS posters. I believe there is absolutely no question that the coauthors of these books, men like Jay Barbree (cowrote "Moonshot"), Cassutt (cowrote the Stafford book "We Have Capture"), David Harland who others have rightly pointed out must be a conspirator , Jeffrey Kluger (Lovell's writer, "Apollo 13"), Eric Jones and Ken Glover who manage the APOLLO LUNAR SURFACE JOURNAL, these people MUST BE INSIDERS. There can be no question they are knowing participants. These authors are jerks and fool no one. No one with a brain in their head. They ought to be jailed with the rest of the scoundrels for making up stories about the science of our moon. I have a particular interest in this "author subject." Who are these guys ? Jones and Harland in particular are fascinating from the perspective of studying the Apollo Conspiracy, which by the way is my preferred term for the thing. Call it what it is, a CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD THE AMERICAN AND WORLD COMMUNITY'S FOR MILITARY PURPOSES. "Hoax", "fraud", "charade", "scam" don't seem to be strong enough. Of the shorthand terms, I personally favor "scam" for whatever reason. )

The astronauts, from the mercury astronauts on through had to be careful about what they said. Once it became known that ICBMs were star readers like the Apollo ships were said to have been, boys and girls a lot smarter than me would have pointed out long ago that it made little "sense" to depend on satisfactory star sighting conditions during times of battle.

There can be no question now that a great deal of time and energy and $$$$$$ has gone into figuring out ways to blind these cyclopses. And then on the other side of the coin, keep their eyes shielded, protected.

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan


Once last comment there mate. My claim has nothing to do with how accurate an ICBM or SLBM might be. I am sure if granted adequate access to the firmament, these things can go from point A to B and land at B on half a dime. My point is that the accuracy is DEPENDENT on good SEEING. When they test the missiles near your house, no one tried to blind the missile en route by shining a laser on it, or illuminating its path with a spray of explosions, bright lights that would have washed out the starlight.

The astronauts from Mercury on knew about all of this. Each one, from Shepard, to Glenn, to Armstrong, to Truly are hiding this from us by way of lying about what they pretend to see.

My point is not speculative. It is a FACT, and a simple one. An ICBM's or SLBM's accuracy can be readily be undermined by way of denying that missile its vision of the "night sky".