US Navy Missile Specialist Talks Flat Earth

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: TexasSeabee
a reply to: LardoCalorissian

Just because he is a Naval Officer

There is no evidence he is.

The things he says are easily disproved. He's lying.

i can attest he is lying.
i was on board the IWO, for 2 deployments, both times we crossed the equator. and the earth is not forking flat.
if you go 20 kn crossing the Atlantic and try going 20 coming back there will be a big difference. which is why ships seldom sail on 'straight lines'-
that guy is an idiot if he is an officer. JO's get no respect anyways....

Just for reference, I was a Field Artillery Surveyor and Forward observer in the 82nd Airborne Division.

I was trained to measure this great big round thing accurately to keep the guns and missiles from dropping on my own ass while I was spotting the missions.

...Saw the curvature of the earth with my own eyes while flying all over the world to reap scunnion on those who would misbehave on my planet also...

You can buy an M2 aiming circle pretty cheap on Ebay, maybe somebody should go find out for themselves this earth is round instead of arguing and fighting about things you have no living and real knowledge of...Which, unfortunately, seems to be about all the entire internet has become in the past decade.

The information superhighway has made you ignorant, like your smart phone makes it unnecessary for you to even remember phone numbers in your head anymore...

Not using your brain does not make it work better and/or more efficiently.

Some of the claims.

First off. He's not an officer. All his warfare pins are enlisted warfare pins. At best he's a CWO, but that wasn't specified in the video.

Second. The tracking systems for FC are generally on the top of the superstructure of the ship. Putting them over 100' above the surface. This gives the targeting system a longer line of sight. Also, the LOS tracking systems are capable of using atmospheric refraction to continue to track an existing target. Lastly, when tracking a ship, it's super structure also sits about 100' over the horizon, and once tracked, the track won't break unless the target has been nearly completely eliminated, meaning it can continue to track even a small cross section, like the top of the super structure.

Third, He claims that ships don't use global projections to navigate, which is complete bunk. I worked in the Quartermaster's dept. in my summers of training. They most definitely use great circle routes to navigate large distances. Also, as a pilot, I could see the curvature of the earth, especially on that little trip I took up to 55k'

Fourth, his claim that the gyros on the ship are all that are used. He clearly doesn't understand the nav systems on the ship and how it transfers data to fire control systems. Most complex systems use a combination of GPS, INS and gyros to precisely locate themselves. The gyros are all that he sees. They use the gyro systems to stabilize the launch rails and targeting systems, so as the ship pitches and rolls, they can keep on target (see when an Abrams tank keeps the barrel on target as it's driving). The position of the ship is derived from the lat long of the ship.

I couldn't even finish the whole first video because his suppositions are just false. I am as qualified as him. I was an officer in the navy and a pilot. I studied navigation, radar and missile systems. I don't know who's voice is on that video, but if he's a FC LPO, man, we're in big trouble.

Cosmo

a reply to: cosmania

Ex-Navy FC here, AN/SPG-55B Terrier missile system, AN/SPS-48C 3D radar system and, RGM-84D Harpoon cruise missile systems were my NECs (including 9802, Instructor).

I can't star your post here in LOL, so have an Applause instead and some thumbs up: you hit the nail on the head.

During the first Gulf War, I could change the refraction on the 48C manually, allowing us to "bend" the radar returns to see further.

NTDS (Naval Tactical Data Systems) also help: other ships located in other areas have their radar data transmitted to other ships, effectively extending our range. EWACS helped quite a bit too.

a reply to: cosmania

55,000 ft? My goodness, that'll get the curvature going!!

What were you in?

Could the curvature make the sight itself curve, light curve in atmosphere.. would explain why they can still see it

a reply to: Spacespider

Yes you actually do see objects before they come above the horizon.
www.santilli-foundation.org...

originally posted by: Tardacus
There`s no need to speculate you can easily prove or disprove it by getting a telescope,set it up on the beach and if the earth is flat you will be able to see a land mass on the other side of the ocean.

I'm not a flat earther, but that won't necessarily work due to atmospheric visual interference at distance.

a reply to: cosmania

Second. The tracking systems for FC are generally on the top of the superstructure of the ship. Putting them over 100' above the surface. This gives the targeting system a longer line of sight. Also, the LOS tracking systems are capable of using atmospheric refraction to continue to track an existing target. Lastly, when tracking a ship, it's super structure also sits about 100' over the horizon, and once tracked, the track won't break unless the target has been nearly completely eliminated, meaning it can continue to track even a small cross section, like the top of the super structure.

There is a blatant issue with that and the fact that this has apparently never occured to you is telling enough.

Let’s use the Earth curve calculator and punch in the numbers.

www.metabunk.org...

A height of 100 ft. and a distance of 50 miles, which is the claim you are disputing.

That would give you a drop of 1430 ft. with a hidden height of 773 ft. So your target would have to be taller than 773ft. for you to have a line of sight.

For someone who is defending the roundness of the Earth you sure seem strangely unaware of the amount of curvature that goes with it. Is it because you never actually had to take it into account?

Also the LOS tracking systems are capable of using atmospheric refraction to continue to track an existing target.

This was a 2d pencil beam radar. You have to keep it on the target. How can you keep it on a target at 50 miles, if you can’t see the target because it supposedly dropped below the horizon at, 13 miles, according to the formula, from a height of 100 ft.?

How can refraction perfectly guide this beam, following the curvature of the Earth, more than 700 ft. of it, all the way along that distance. That would mean that you would also be able to see past the horizon, which is impossible, otherwise, it would not be the horizon.

Off course, the exception would be a mirage, but you can’t paint and track a mirage.

Atmospheric conditions would have have to be absolutely perfect every stretch of the way and even if it were possible, it would not be dependable, since conditions are not perfect.

And we are not talking about bouncing radar of off the atmosphere either. This is a precise pencil beam radar that has to have a direct line of sight.

And again, the target starts to dissapear after 13 miles according to the official globe Earth curvature formula.


Have you ever painted targets that were past the horizon with a pencil beam radar?

a reply to: cosmania

Also, as a pilot, I could see the curvature of the earth, especially on that little trip I took up to 55k'

Really, cause you don't see it in balloon footage from 100k.

a reply to: eriktheawful

So have you ever used a pencil beam to paint a target that was beyond the horizon, for more than 30 miles with a drop of more than 700 ft.?

a reply to: NoahTalls

Back so soon???

a reply to: seagull

F-14B. We had time and gas to burn. We weren't supposed to be up there.

a reply to: cosmania

...and you didn't come get me?

Ah, man...

That'd been a kickass way to spend the day...tell me you got a cat shot in, too? That way my jealousy is complete .

a reply to: seagull

Still off topic, Smeagull?

a reply to: NoahTalls

Oh, you're soooo cute. I just wanna put you in my pocket and take you home with me.

See you in your next incarnation. Pick it up at trolls r us! Two for one sale.

a reply to: NoahTalls

You're right. I'm a big fat liar. Or delusional. I guess I didn't see what I saw.

But you believe some dude in a video explain that he painted a target with a pencil beam (not sure when a laser becomes a pencil beam) at 50 miles. He said it, so it must be true.

I have painted a target outside of 100 miles with a pencil beam radar. I have painted a target with a laser, but I cannot tell you the distances because it's classified, which, I'm guessing should also be the specs for the Sea Sparrow missile system.

Have you ever been above 50,000 feet?

a reply to: seagull

Well, yeah. I believe it was during this deployment. I think that flight occurred in the Gulf.

youtu.be...

Maybe earth is actually much much bigger and there is a curvature but it takes a far greater distance to notice its effects? Maybe our entire known earth as the flat earth model is on the top of this sphere, facing the sun and antarctica and beyond is locked away from it. Best of both worlds, flat earth (ish) and ball earth

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14

originally posted by: Tardacus
There`s no need to speculate you can easily prove or disprove it by getting a telescope,set it up on the beach and if the earth is flat you will be able to see a land mass on the other side of the ocean.

I'm not a flat earther, but that won't necessarily work due to atmospheric visual interference at distance.

True, but the distance you can see is about 2x the distance of the horizon. So it's still a valid experiment, just need to use shorter distances.

Look at an object ~90 miles away, at sea level, and at height. If you can see 'further' at height then curvature is responsible.