The Key to it all

ahh, now i get you.

Not a major breakthrough, for sure. But an interesting idea nonetheless. Yes, i would bet that if we could blind the sensors they would have lost navigation. I would also suspect, however, that if you used nukes to create the light flashes, the EMP would have disabled the entire warhead. I would suspect a simple mirror system to work just as well.

And the US Government has such systems. They claim they 'shoot the missile", but what I bet they are really doing is blinding them.

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan



Yeah BFFT. Can't be the case Star Wars was about shooting ICBMs down. Too hard. This makes way more sense. I wonder how much equipment they've got up there?

reply to post by WeaselSpencer


how much light is needed to blind the optics permanently?? and for how long?? considering the optics take periodic celestial markings, how will they know exactly when to detonate each nuke to disable the optics system?

and light isnt much of a factor considering they are able to sight stars in daylight and under cloud cover.

oh and they dont have accuracy to land on a penny, their errors range from a radius of about a kilometer..

reply to post by choos


Why ask me. I am no expert. Good point I think. I agree with BFFT. Not a game changer but interesting. One thing is clear. SDI was fake. They were doing this light shining. That makes plenty of sense.

reply to post by DigItLosseJam


I am no Apollo expert but who is to say those big Saturn launches were for anything but placing lasers or nukes or something in space to disable the Russian missiles. What tells me that may be true more than anything is this guy starts this thread and 10 guys respond immediately with nothing. Usually when I see that I interpret it as the guy meing right.

reply to post by WeaselSpencer


well considering they can use the sun as a celestial body to help navigate.. how effective do you think this light blinding method will be??

you blind its navigation, and it lands on the other side of the US.. it hasnt hit its intended target.. but has still struck its enemy.. its more effective to just destroy it before it gets anywhere close to taking any lives.

and when someone starts with nothing.. than nothing can be brought to the table.. you can believe saying nothing to begin with will mean they are right as much as you like..

reply to post by choos


The guy's point is valid. I don't get yours. It doesn't mean the mIssiles are not accurate choos. It means the general stories we are told are not accurate. His point about the astronauts is interesting. Might be something to it. Don't you think SDI was a cover for something real ? I like this approach. Needs work . Maybe SDI was defensive but focused on methods to disable or Interfere with the guidance systems. Maybe the Apollo sat turns launched lasers computers nukes all 3.

reply to post by WeaselSpencer


Star Wars was not about defense. At least, not from humans, and even then not directly.

ETA: there are many, many officials from the Cold War era that have talked about how collusion with the USSR. The "Cold War" was fodder for the media. The truth is, it has been 1 team the whole time.

An example is Charlotte Iserbyte who blew the whistle on the collusion to present shoddy public education in both nations in order to dumb down the populace and make control easier.

We are human crops, having our productivity harvested for whoever/whatever it is at the top of the Planetary Ponzi Pyramid.

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan


"Human crops", very profound and very true. Can you say more about how SDI was offensive? Thanks BFFT.

Originally posted by WeaselSpencer
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

 

"Human crops", very profound and very true. Can you say more about how SDI was offensive? Thanks BFFT.

It wasn't offensive. It is a long story. And the story is my own, maybe a few others. It is, like all of us do, my own understanding based on a broad array of things.

So here you have it...the abridged version:

Star Wars was more about research. Clementine, the Lunar mapping operation, was not a NASA operation. It was DoD. Navy Space Command, to be precise. Why map the moon as part of your "Strategic Missile Defense" system?

As well, the "Star Wars" was a cover for launches of large payloads. Of course, there is always SeaLaunch, or other non continental US locations. But the activity still would need some explanation.

You are aware of Aquila? The heavy lift operation that has been in use since the late 60's/early 70's? What were they heavy lifting?

Have you ever seen the absurd amount of fruits on the payloads of regular Shuttle missions? Enough to feed considerable numbers of people. Pounds of things like banana's. Smelly, over ripe bananas.

If i were to want to set up a base that remained out of the public eye, and have access to really cool and helpful things (as it relates to exotic science, as in how they manufacture Stealth paint) like micro gravity, I might consider the far side of the moon for such a location. I would also suspect that I could place a small contingent to work out monetization of the base via mining efforts (He3 is worth more than anything you can imagine, and there is tons of it on the Moon).

There is just too much evidence. Right down to the evidence that I have seen compiled by our former member Zorgon relating to a secret, parallel, DoD run Shuttle Program.

Originally posted by WeaselSpencer
reply to post by choos

 

The guy's point is valid. I don't get yours.

of course you get his point.. just as you would fully understand decisively's points

If one detonates a nuke or shines a laser on an ICBM the missile is blinded.

so you understand his point?? so how close or far does a nuke need to be in order to not destroy the offending nuke and close enough to blind its optics? how long does the light from the blast persist? is it more intense than the sun and to what degree? how do they know when to detonate the nuke and at what position in order to blind the optics, which does periodic sighting and in specific directions?

It doesn't mean the mIssiles are not accurate choos. It means the general stories we are told are not accurate. His point about the astronauts is interesting.

stories not accurate?? you talked about these missiles landing on a penny.. and now saying the general stories are not accurate?? which stories are you talking about?? is it about how the couldnt/shouldnt see stars in cislunar space?
p.s. of course you would think your own points on the astronauts are interesting..

Might be something to it. Don't you think SDI was a cover for something real ? I like this approach. Needs work . Maybe SDI was defensive but focused on methods to disable or Interfere with the guidance systems.

cover?? cover for what?? SDI was proposed in '83 as a means of getting out of the MAD mentality. its better to destroy the missile in most cases than to allow it to land somewhere populated.

Maybe the Apollo sat turns launched lasers computers nukes all 3.

you need to re-write this.. i have no idea what you just said.

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan


The part about blinding the nukes may not be a major breakthrough, but the part about this all explaining the astronaut stories with their seeing and then sometimes not seeing stars would be huge. No one has ever been able to fully explain that. Looks as though this guy may be on to something. Investigators going back to Rene have pointed out the problem with the astronauts' accounts of star visibility. But no one has ever convincingly explained why the astronauts would make up stories about star visibility. I like this approach. Time will tell if it pans out.

reply to post by ScottyD


im still not clear on that part. why would them seeing and then not seeing them tie into this as a conspiracy?

I am of the belief that it represents a brainwashing to repress some memory. Or just bad lying to cover up the truth.

reply to post by ScottyD

The part about blinding the nukes may not be a major breakthrough, but the part about this all explaining the astronaut stories with their seeing and then sometimes not seeing stars would be huge.

No, it wouldn't.

No one has ever been able to fully explain that.

It is mostly a matter of dark adaptation. If you had read any of the countless Moon Hoax threads here on ATS you would know that that issue is dead in the water.

Looks as though this guy may be on to something.

No, you-- I mean, he is not.

Investigators going back to Rene have pointed out the problem with the astronauts' accounts of star visibility. But no one has ever convincingly explained why the astronauts would make up stories about star visibility.

Dead in the water.

I like this approach. Time will tell if it pans out.

One way or the other, I'm sure you'll be around to see how it ends.

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan


Can you elaborate on what weapons you believe are presently deployed in space? How "high up" must one be to be fully apprised of our space weapons ? President, Secretary of Defense, JCS, NORAD chiefs ? Do you believe there are nukes parked in space presently ? Lasers ?

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan


I'd say it was major. The nukes don't work. We know that much and now we also know Neil Armstrong and his cohort of dim wits were on in on a ruse to fleece U.S. taxpayers, put bombs in space, tell everyone at the same time it was all nicey nicey and peaceful and sweetie sweetie when really it was seedy seedy.

reply to post by DocHolidaze


In the 60s and 70s missile celestial navigation was not something that could be turned off and on by way of a switch. The posters points are valid DocHolidaze.

reply to post by festerbubkis



how many "sock puppy's" are you going to create??

so now nukes cant blind other nukes optical navigation?? you started off saying they could and now you changed your mind? yet somehow this confirms that Neil Armstrong was putting nukes in space?

as always your logic fails doc..