Offline Action80

  • *
  • Posts: 939
    • View Profile
Re: FE and ICBMs
« Reply #140 on: June 03, 2021, 02:06:09 PM »
They said paraded missiles were fake. You haven’t come close to showing that all the ICBMs are fake. In fact your own source disagreed with you. You are master of self-owning.
I think the real issue is no one here has come close to demonstrating ICBM's are real, including you.

Until then, it is just a myth propagated by liars.

You have nothing but a bunch of words from known liars, which you love to repeat.

The OP needs to go to CN.

What about Tomahawk missiles? Are they real? Are mortars real?

At what level of technology does the weapon become fake?
When you cannot produce evidence of use, I would suppose.

I have seen Tomahawks in use, hitting their intended targets.

I have also seen mortars in use, hitting their intended targets.


I am perhaps fortunate never to have seen an actual mortar fired, or a Tomahawk hit its target.  Do you have a source for their existence, or is it just your own testimony?
Just my own testimony.

Offline SteelyBob

  • *
  • Posts: 479
    • View Profile
Re: FE and ICBMs
« Reply #141 on: June 03, 2021, 02:10:11 PM »

It has nothing to do with what kind of points you offer up and you know damn well it doesn't.

Despite your objections, you know damn well it has to do with no defined 0/0.

Without a defined 0/0, the actual distance of each grid set forth by intersecting lines of lat/long, or x/y, or whatever you choose to call them, cannot be officially defined, and hence why you all struggle so mightily with issues of distance when it comes to interpreting whole world maps.

Further, when it comes to mapping specific areas, such as what you have offered up, that is a depicted as FLAT on a flat piece of paper.

Which FE map are you backing, and what are its dimensions?

Why do you refuse to answer such a basic question?

Action80 - still waiting for you to explain which FE map you think best represents the earth, and to give some indication of its dimensions.

Tom - still waiting for you to help Action80 out with the distance-between-two-lat/longs maths challenge.

*

Offline Dr Van Nostrand

  • *
  • Posts: 575
  • There may be something to this 'Matrix' stuff...
    • View Profile
Re: FE and ICBMs
« Reply #142 on: June 03, 2021, 02:39:45 PM »
When you cannot produce evidence of use, I would suppose.

I have seen Tomahawks in use, hitting their intended targets.

I have also seen mortars in use, hitting their intended targets.

So if you hadn't actually seen a tomahawk or a mortar, you wouldn't believe in those either yet they would exist. How much of reality are you missing?
Round Earther patiently looking for a better deal...

Offline WTF_Seriously

  • *
  • Posts: 630
  • When I grow up I wanna be like Pete
    • View Profile
Re: FE and ICBMs
« Reply #143 on: June 03, 2021, 03:27:26 PM »

When you cannot produce evidence of use, I would suppose.

I have seen Tomahawks in use, hitting their intended targets.

I have also seen mortars in use, hitting their intended targets.


Just my own testimony.

Why should we believe your testimony?  To anyone else but you it is just unverified second hand drivel.  The exact thing you have completely dismissed and ignored this entire thread and deemed as proof of nothing.

RonJ gave his own personal testimony of witnessing the test of a North Korean ICBM yet you have completely dismissed it and discounted it. 

I'll give out a clue.  Yes 'rocket man' can launch ICBM's.  I did a little checking in my personal records that did indicate that I was aboard a ship that did transit the Sea of Japan between North Korea and Japan during the launch of Hwasong 14.  That voyage was a little unique in that we had alarms going off and incoming traffic telling us that North Korea had launched a missile.  This was a warning to us because what goes up has to come down.  That missile was spotted on a trajectory that did pass over our ship and did come back down and landed in the sea near Japan.  We were quite a distance from where the missile landed but what if something went wrong on the assent and we got hit when the missile finally landed?  It was a small chance but it's something to be concerned about.   So again here are some observations from first hand personal experience so I didn't have to spend any time doing Google searches.

What makes your testimony so special?  Short answer is it isn't.  Yours is no more proof of something as anyone else's.

In the end, Tom Bishop can sum up your entire line of debate in this thread way better than I can:

Lol "Everyone is Wrong and LiEeInG"
That is a desperate argument from a losing position. An argument from a position of strength would have positive evidence for that position.

Distance from Sydney to Perth - We don't know.
There's a mirror floating in the sky - Yup.

Offline Action80

  • *
  • Posts: 939
    • View Profile
Re: FE and ICBMs
« Reply #144 on: June 03, 2021, 04:07:55 PM »
When you cannot produce evidence of use, I would suppose.

I have seen Tomahawks in use, hitting their intended targets.

I have also seen mortars in use, hitting their intended targets.

So if you hadn't actually seen a tomahawk or a mortar, you wouldn't believe in those either yet they would exist. How much of reality are you missing?
Perhaps you have an issue with the word "verification."

I certainly do not.

Regardless, if I am able to see something live and in living color, I am certainly in a better position to come to a personal opinion as to the existence of that something, whatever that something is.

So, in regard to your 1st statement, that is just a bunch of crap.

In regard to your 2nd statement, I am missing no more of the real existence about me and would feel rather confident stating I am experiencing more reality than you are, given your proven predilection to believe proven propaganda artists. 

Offline Action80

  • *
  • Posts: 939
    • View Profile
Re: FE and ICBMs
« Reply #145 on: June 03, 2021, 04:23:13 PM »

When you cannot produce evidence of use, I would suppose.

I have seen Tomahawks in use, hitting their intended targets.

I have also seen mortars in use, hitting their intended targets.


Just my own testimony.

Why should we believe your testimony?  To anyone else but you it is just unverified second hand drivel.  The exact thing you have completely dismissed and ignored this entire thread and deemed as proof of nothing.
I never asked you to believe anything.

The MSM asks you to believe and you show your fealty and undying support for everything they put out, despite numerous proven episodes of outright lies and BS spewed on a daily basis.
RonJ gave his own personal testimony of witnessing the test of a North Korean ICBM yet you have completely dismissed it and discounted it.

What makes your testimony so special?  Short answer is it isn't.  Yours is no more proof of something as anyone else's.
This entire section of your post is just pure BS.

I never stated his/her testimony was bogus.

Quit lying.
« Last Edit: June 03, 2021, 04:35:29 PM by Action80 »

Offline WTF_Seriously

  • *
  • Posts: 630
  • When I grow up I wanna be like Pete
    • View Profile
Re: FE and ICBMs
« Reply #146 on: June 03, 2021, 04:35:03 PM »

I never stated his/her testimony was bogus.

Quit lying.

You most certainly did.  After being given a firsthand account, you continued with your narrative of:

Lol "Everyone is Wrong and LiEeInG"

with respect to any information regarding whether or not ICBMs exist.  That's a direct assertion that RonJ's testimony was bogus.

Bye now.
« Last Edit: June 03, 2021, 04:36:52 PM by WTF_Seriously »
Distance from Sydney to Perth - We don't know.
There's a mirror floating in the sky - Yup.

Offline Action80

  • *
  • Posts: 939
    • View Profile
Re: FE and ICBMs
« Reply #147 on: June 03, 2021, 04:40:17 PM »

I never stated his/her testimony was bogus.

Quit lying.

You most certainly did.  After being given a firsthand account, you continued with your narrative of:

Lol "Everyone is Wrong and LiEeInG"

with respect to any information regarding whether or not ICBMs exist.  That's a direct assertion that RonJ's testimony was bogus.
One
 
more

time.

When you can come up with something that actually proves an ICBM exists, I will gladly recant.

I never saw a post from RonJ concerning the existence/use of a North Korean ICBM and if you can find a direct reply from me to RonJ concerning the existence/use of a North Korean ICBM then I will recant again.

Until then, I will leave it to your obviously challenged intellect to actually determine what the acronym "ICBM" stands for.

Bye now.
« Last Edit: June 03, 2021, 05:33:54 PM by Action80 »

*

Offline RonJ

  • *
  • Posts: 1606
  • ACTA NON VERBA
    • View Profile
Re: FE and ICBMs
« Reply #148 on: June 03, 2021, 05:34:21 PM »

I never stated his/her testimony was bogus.

Quit lying.

You most certainly did.  After being given a firsthand account, you continued with your narrative of:

Lol "Everyone is Wrong and LiEeInG"

with respect to any information regarding whether or not ICBMs exist.  That's a direct assertion that RonJ's testimony was bogus.
One
 
more

time.

When you can come up with something that actually proves an ICBM exists, I will gladly recant.

I never saw a post from from RonJ concerning the existence/use of a North Korean ICBM and if you can find a direct reply from me to RonJ concerning the existence/use of a North Korean ICBM then I will recant again.

Until then, I will leave it to your obviously challenged intellect to actually determine what the acronym "ICBM" stands for.

Bye now.
In an attempt to directly answer your question and provide a post, I will give the following first hand experiences:
   1) While serving as a US Merchant Marine officer aboard a cargo ship transiting between the Korean Peninsula and Japan there were numerous alarms and warnings going off on the bridge of our ship. 
   2)  Several broadcast messages to all ships at sea were received from the Japanese Coast Guard  authorities regarding the immanent and later the actual launch of a North Korean ICBM.
   3)  Since the North Koreans don't tell everyone in advance what is happening all we can do is wait.
   4)  The missile launch in question was at night.  Skies were clear and a missile was clearly seen traveling upwards then over the top (forward of the bow) of our ship.
   5) We later got a message that the missile had landed in the sea far off the coast of Japan in the Pacific Ocean quite a distance from our ship.


We knew the danger was over at this point.  Our voyage back to the USA from China was not interrupted and the North Korean ICBM test didn't cause us any difficulties.
This was my experience along with the experience of others who were performing their duties on the bridge of the ship when the event occurred. 


No one is telling me what to say and/or when I could say it.  This is all public record for those who wish to do their own research. 


That was an interesting voyage from the start.  The North Koreans were definitely saying that they could and might conduct a missile strike on Hawaii.  We were also at the dock in Hono loading cargo at that time.  Stress levels were a bit higher than normal.  Ask anyone living in Hawaii about that period of time and they will be glad to tell you.  I do believe that the tourist industry was hit some because why would someone want to be in Honolulu when 'rocket man' might get an itchy trigger finger?
 
« Last Edit: June 03, 2021, 05:37:12 PM by RonJ »
You can lead flat earthers to the curve but you can't make them think!

Offline Action80

  • *
  • Posts: 939
    • View Profile
Re: FE and ICBMs
« Reply #149 on: June 03, 2021, 05:41:38 PM »

I never stated his/her testimony was bogus.

Quit lying.

You most certainly did.  After being given a firsthand account, you continued with your narrative of:

Lol "Everyone is Wrong and LiEeInG"

with respect to any information regarding whether or not ICBMs exist.  That's a direct assertion that RonJ's testimony was bogus.
One
 
more

time.

When you can come up with something that actually proves an ICBM exists, I will gladly recant.

I never saw a post from from RonJ concerning the existence/use of a North Korean ICBM and if you can find a direct reply from me to RonJ concerning the existence/use of a North Korean ICBM then I will recant again.

Until then, I will leave it to your obviously challenged intellect to actually determine what the acronym "ICBM" stands for.

Bye now.
In an attempt to directly answer your question and provide a post, I will give the following first hand experiences:
   1) While serving as a US Merchant Marine officer aboard a cargo ship transiting between the Korean Peninsula and Japan there were numerous alarms and warnings going off on the bridge of our ship. 
   2)  Several broadcast messages to all ships at sea were received from the Japanese Coast Guard  authorities regarding the immanent and later the actual launch of a North Korean ICBM.
   3)  Since the North Koreans don't tell everyone in advance what is happening all we can do is wait.
   4)  The missile launch in question was at night.  Skies were clear and a missile was clearly seen traveling upwards then over the top (forward of the bow) of our ship.
   5) We later got a message that the missile had landed in the sea far off the coast of Japan in the Pacific Ocean quite a distance from our ship.


We knew the danger was over at this point.  Our voyage back to the USA from China was not interrupted and the North Korean ICBM test didn't cause us any difficulties.
This was my experience along with the experience of others who were performing their duties on the bridge of the ship when the event occurred. 


No one is telling me what to say and/or when I could say it.  This is all public record for those who wish to do their own research. 


That was an interesting voyage from the start.  The North Koreans were definitely saying that they could and might conduct a missile strike on Hawaii.  We were also at the dock in Hono loading cargo at that time.  Stress levels were a bit higher than normal.  Ask anyone living in Hawaii about that period of time and they will be glad to tell you.  I do believe that the tourist industry was hit some because why would someone want to be in Honolulu when 'rocket man' might get an itchy trigger finger?
Interesting story.

I am sure your vessel and crew was on high alert and on the lookout.

So tell us what was it like to see a non-ICBM in action? Pretty cool, I bet.

I know I like to watch missiles being fired.

Re: FE and ICBMs
« Reply #150 on: June 03, 2021, 05:44:52 PM »
Though its based on personal experience, looks like RonJ was able to refer to his log to refresh his memory and add a bit of gravitas to his experience.  I don't know if you keep a diary @Action80, but could you provide more detail of your Tomahawk stuff, like where and when, and was it the sub-, surface- or land based version.  And only if its not breaching any security protocols. 

I'm still inclined to think that the whole Tomahawk thing may be a figment of the MIC pseudo-arms dealers and unicorn farmers. 

Oh, and this is a nice touch:  So tell us what was it like to see a non-ICBM in action? Pretty cool, I bet.

Now it looks like Ron is agreeing with you!  Clever!
« Last Edit: June 03, 2021, 05:50:05 PM by DuncanDoenitz »

Offline Action80

  • *
  • Posts: 939
    • View Profile
Re: FE and ICBMs
« Reply #151 on: June 03, 2021, 05:55:13 PM »
Though its based on personal experience, looks like RonJ was able to refer to his log to refresh his memory and add a bit of gravitas to his experience.  I don't know if you keep a diary @Action80, but could you provide more detail of your Tomahawk stuff, like where and when, and was it the sub-, surface- or land based version.  And only if its not breaching any security protocols. 

I'm still inclined to think that the whole Tomahawk thing may be a figment of the MIC pseudo-arms dealers and unicorn farmers. 

Oh, and this is a nice touch:  So tell us what was it like to see a non-ICBM in action? Pretty cool, I bet.

Now it looks like Ron is agreeing with you!  Clever!
I cannot get into any particulars, except to state it was testing.

No touch to it.

He acknowledges a missile was fired, he acknowledges it landed, and he acknowledges what he witnessed did not constitute an ICBM.

*

Offline RonJ

  • *
  • Posts: 1606
  • ACTA NON VERBA
    • View Profile
Re: FE and ICBMs
« Reply #152 on: June 03, 2021, 05:56:26 PM »
Please do your research first. Your non-ICBM statement might possibly be a bit incorrect!
If I buy a Lamborghini and only drive it to the grocery store and someone says "That's a sub-100 mph vehicle"  I say "do some research". 
North Korean 'rocket man' has to be a bit careful doing his tests.  The exact capabilities of his missiles are not exactly public knowledge and nether are those of the missiles in USA's arsenal.  It's safe to assume, from the known results of all the previous tests, that these missiles could reach the USA.  That would make them an ICBM. 


Who would have thought that the Japanese could launch a devastating attack on Hawaii in 1941.  Do you blame Hawaiians for being cautious?  Fool me once, shame on you.  Fool me twice, shame on me! 
« Last Edit: June 03, 2021, 06:16:19 PM by RonJ »
You can lead flat earthers to the curve but you can't make them think!

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 8918
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: FE and ICBMs
« Reply #153 on: June 03, 2021, 07:09:52 PM »

I never stated his/her testimony was bogus.

Quit lying.

You most certainly did.  After being given a firsthand account, you continued with your narrative of:

Lol "Everyone is Wrong and LiEeInG"

with respect to any information regarding whether or not ICBMs exist.  That's a direct assertion that RonJ's testimony was bogus.

Bye now.

I believe we were talking about whether the Republican Legislature in the states were being nefarious about the audits. If it was found that they lied about audits, or audits in the past, that would be evidence against them. In that case we had Rama Set calling everything that disagreed with him to be wrong or a lie.

In this case we do have evidence that Russia has lied about ICBM technologies, with you summarily declaring that there is no evidence of them being nefarious about ICBMs. Quite the opposite of your portrait of the situation.

Offline WTF_Seriously

  • *
  • Posts: 630
  • When I grow up I wanna be like Pete
    • View Profile
Re: FE and ICBMs
« Reply #154 on: June 03, 2021, 08:14:31 PM »
I believe we were talking about whether the Republican Legislature in the states were being nefarious about the audits. If it was found that they lied about audits, or audits in the past, that would be evidence against them. In that case we had Rama Set calling everything that disagreed with him to be wrong or a lie.
What, exactly does this have to do anything?

In this case we do have evidence that Russia has lied about ICBM technologies, with you summarily declaring that there is no evidence of them being nefarious about ICBMs. Quite the opposite of your portrait of the situation.

Do you sell cherries?  You sure do seem to do a lot of cherry picking.

You seemed to overlook this:

with respect to any information regarding whether or not ICBMs exist.

part of my post.

The nefarious activity was in effort to imply more power than may have actually been the case.  The fact that ICBM technology existed wasn't in question.

Distance from Sydney to Perth - We don't know.
There's a mirror floating in the sky - Yup.

Offline Action80

  • *
  • Posts: 939
    • View Profile
Re: FE and ICBMs
« Reply #155 on: June 03, 2021, 08:16:42 PM »
Please do your research first. Your non-ICBM statement might possibly be a bit incorrect!
If I buy a Lamborghini and only drive it to the grocery store and someone says "That's a sub-100 mph vehicle"  I say "do some research". 
North Korean 'rocket man' has to be a bit careful doing his tests.  The exact capabilities of his missiles are not exactly public knowledge and nether are those of the missiles in USA's arsenal.  It's safe to assume, from the known results of all the previous tests, that these missiles could reach the USA.  That would make them an ICBM. 


Who would have thought that the Japanese could launch a devastating attack on Hawaii in 1941.  Do you blame Hawaiians for being cautious?  Fool me once, shame on you.  Fool me twice, shame on me!
Actually,  it is more safe to assume this renegade despot has no missile capable of reaching the US.

Two launches, neither coming close to defining an ICBM.

*

Offline Rama Set

  • *
  • Posts: 8197
  • Round and round...
    • View Profile
Re: FE and ICBMs
« Reply #156 on: June 03, 2021, 08:26:18 PM »
Total Lackey: Missiles totally work!

Also Total Lackey: Missiles don’t work!
Th*rk is the worst person on this website.

*

Offline RonJ

  • *
  • Posts: 1606
  • ACTA NON VERBA
    • View Profile
Re: FE and ICBMs
« Reply #157 on: June 04, 2021, 02:45:04 AM »
Please do your research first. Your non-ICBM statement might possibly be a bit incorrect!
If I buy a Lamborghini and only drive it to the grocery store and someone says "That's a sub-100 mph vehicle"  I say "do some research". 
North Korean 'rocket man' has to be a bit careful doing his tests.  The exact capabilities of his missiles are not exactly public knowledge and nether are those of the missiles in USA's arsenal.  It's safe to assume, from the known results of all the previous tests, that these missiles could reach the USA.  That would make them an ICBM. 


Who would have thought that the Japanese could launch a devastating attack on Hawaii in 1941.  Do you blame Hawaiians for being cautious?  Fool me once, shame on you.  Fool me twice, shame on me!
Actually,  it is more safe to assume this renegade despot has no missile capable of reaching the US.

Two launches, neither coming close to defining an ICBM.
A wise man once showed me something about the word ASSUME.  It makes an ASS out of  U and ME.  We try to assume nothing while at sea.  King Neptune can and will come back and bite you, hard.  It's much better to prepare for what the potential facts could be.  You have no way of knowing what rocket man's hole card may actually be.  You don't think the missiles that were actually tested were fully fueled do you?  Perhaps you should just send an email saying that you are putting a bulls eye target in the middle of Jack London Square in Oakland, CA and say 'here you go, rocket man, here's your test target, give it your best shot'.  That way we will both know if you have an ICBM or just a toy. 
You can lead flat earthers to the curve but you can't make them think!

Offline Action80

  • *
  • Posts: 939
    • View Profile
Re: FE and ICBMs
« Reply #158 on: June 04, 2021, 10:21:35 AM »
Please do your research first. Your non-ICBM statement might possibly be a bit incorrect!
If I buy a Lamborghini and only drive it to the grocery store and someone says "That's a sub-100 mph vehicle"  I say "do some research". 
North Korean 'rocket man' has to be a bit careful doing his tests.  The exact capabilities of his missiles are not exactly public knowledge and nether are those of the missiles in USA's arsenal.  It's safe to assume, from the known results of all the previous tests, that these missiles could reach the USA.  That would make them an ICBM. 


Who would have thought that the Japanese could launch a devastating attack on Hawaii in 1941.  Do you blame Hawaiians for being cautious?  Fool me once, shame on you.  Fool me twice, shame on me!
Actually,  it is more safe to assume this renegade despot has no missile capable of reaching the US.

Two launches, neither coming close to defining an ICBM.
A wise man once showed me something about the word ASSUME.  It makes an ASS out of  U and ME.  We try to assume nothing while at sea.  King Neptune can and will come back and bite you, hard.  It's much better to prepare for what the potential facts could be.  You have no way of knowing what rocket man's hole card may actually be.  You don't think the missiles that were actually tested were fully fueled do you?  Perhaps you should just send an email saying that you are putting a bulls eye target in the middle of Jack London Square in Oakland, CA and say 'here you go, rocket man, here's your test target, give it your best shot'.  That way we will both know if you have an ICBM or just a toy.
The bottom line for all of this thread is this.

The only evidence that exists for ICBM's is some propaganda and gullible believers.

You know, the same type that confront Bible enthusiasts with words like, "How can you believe that garbage!?"

Guys like you and Rama.

*

Offline Rama Set

  • *
  • Posts: 8197
  • Round and round...
    • View Profile
Re: FE and ICBMs
« Reply #159 on: June 04, 2021, 10:42:08 AM »
The selfaware-wolf was hungry.
Th*rk is the worst person on this website.