Recent Posts

91
Arts & Entertainment / Re: Now Playing
« Last post by Toddler Thork on June 11, 2021, 11:36:07 PM »
I'm going to wash my eyeballs.  >:(
92
Arts & Entertainment / Re: Now Playing
« Last post by rooster on June 11, 2021, 09:52:00 PM »
 ;) :-*

93
Science & Alternative Science / Re: FE and ICBMs
« Last post by SteelyBob on June 11, 2021, 09:03:08 PM »
Whether or not you take me seriously is not the subject, nor is it any concern of mine.

It's not me you need to worry about - it's the undecided folks reading this. Your refusal to respond to any basic questions, like whether or not you accept the time of flight figure, or to support your apparently arbitrary figure of 32000mph, just makes it look like you're hiding something. The sum total of your arguments on this thread, and indeed others, is simply saying that stuff isn't true. That's not a debate - you need to actually engage in some kind of discussion, providing evidence and data to support your position.

I hold globular believers in very low regard, especially those incapable of performing very basic math.

You're welcome to your opinion, of course, but levelling an accusation of an inability to perform basic math when you have, on this thread, completely failed to demonstrate any math(s) skills whatsoever is somewhat hypocritical. In this thread alone you've demonstrated a lack of understanding of cartesian and polar coordinates, claimed that ballistic missiles can be aimed by means of a simple quadratic equation...although you've failed to provide that equation, and failed to comprehend that it ain't that simple. You've then plucked a random figure out of thin air, without any evidence at all, and expected us all to accept it as fact to support your argument.

There's a good reason you aren't providing your calculations, isn't there? If you're embarrassed by your mathematical skills, and you're interested in ballistic missile principles, this website has a useful estimate of the NK missile capabilities based on flight time: https://physicsfromplanetearth.wordpress.com/2017/08/18/the-range-of-north-korean-ballistic-missiles/

They have two pages - the second one has a more precise calculation, but that involves trusting the reported apogee height, which I'm assuming you don't.

So far, no one has demonstrated an ICBM even exists.

But you've demonstrated that you won't accept any evidence that contradicts your worldview - what's the point of engaging in debate if you aren't willing to either change your own position, or to offer up compelling evidence in order to change other peoples'? You're just sat there shouting 'it isn't true'.

So, this entire topic belongs in CN.

How much stuff that has been thrown into the mix just on this thread is a typical display of RE-supporters.

Sane person - "You know something, not one ICBM has even been used, RE or FE. Why try to link an ICBM to the shape of the earth, if this is a fact?"

RE supporter - "Because ICBM's are REAL!"

Sane person - "OK. Show me some evidence they are real."

RE supporter - "These reports from government officials, repeated by MSM."

Sane person - "The same governments that are demonstrably lying to you each and every day and have been for millenia? The same MSM that serves as nothing but a propaganda arm for those governments?"

RE supporters - "OK, what about shipping routes and missing land area?"

It really is getting tiresome.

But you yourself have willingly accepted the reported range of a ballistic missile test - you've used that same statistic to argue against RE proponents. At the above link you can see that, if you also accept the time of flight reports to be true, then that's all the information you need to work out that the range of those missiles is indeed intercontinental. You don't need anything else - no NASA, no governments...nothing. If a ballistic missile can fly for 40 or 50 minutes, then it is capable of flying many thousands of miles.

If you're genuinely curious, there's a wealth of information out there. If you're just here to cynically shout that stuff isn't true, then we can't help.
94
Science & Alternative Science / Re: FE and ICBMs
« Last post by stack on June 11, 2021, 05:24:44 PM »
It really is getting tiresome.

Indeed, quite tiresome. So you've decided to not show us your math as to how you arrived at 32k mph? Is there a reason you won't show us?

As well, yes, straight from the Military Industrial Complex and MSM from 1962, there has actually been a live firing of a ballistic missile with a warhead detonation - Granted, it wasn't flown intercontinentally, but it did leave and re-enter the atmosphere after traveling a 1000+ or so nautical miles, minimum-maximum altitude 98,000' - 260,000' (my bolding):

Test:   Frigate Bird
Time:   23:30 6 May 1962 (GMT)
Location:   Johnston Island
Test Height and Type:   SLBM Airburst; 11,000 Feet
Yield:   600 kt
Device Diameter (inches):   18
Device Length (inches):   46.6
Device Weight (lb.):   717
Frigate Bird was the only US test of an operational ballistic missile with a live warhead. This test involved firing a Polaris A1 missile from a ballistic missile submarine. The missile was launched by the USS Ethan Allen (SSBN-608) at 13:18 (local) from a position 1500 nm east-northeast of Christmas Island. The re-entry vehicle (RV) and warhead flew 1020 nm downrange toward Christmas Island before re-entering the atmosphere 12.5 minutes later, and detonating in an airburst at 11,000 feet. The system tested was a combination of a Polaris A1 SLBM, and a W-47Y1 warhead in a Mk-1 RV. The Mk-1 RV had a beryllium heat-sink heat shield, and with the 717 lb warhead had a gross weight of 900 lb. The missile/RV demonstrated an accuracy on the order of 2200 yards. This warhead had a yield-to-weight ratio of 1.84 kt/kg, but the higher yield Y2 variant tested in Dominic Harlem doubled the yield and nearly doubled tht YTW ratio to 3.61 kt/kg.

The image of the Frigate Bird mushroom cloud was taken through the periscope of the USS Carbonero (SS-337) 480 nm ENE of Christmas Island. The Carbonero (along with the USS Medregal, SS-480) was within 30 miles of the burst point.

http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Usa/Tests/Dominic.html

Other than riding a missile yourself, I'm not sure what you're looking for...

95
Science & Alternative Science / Re: FE and ICBMs
« Last post by Dr Van Nostrand on June 11, 2021, 03:30:03 PM »

The bottom line for all of this thread is this.

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


Have you ever seen the Eiffel Tower?
How do you know the Eiffel Tower is real?

I'm guessing you believe in the Eiffel Tower because it doesn't conflict with your worldview even though you've never seen it.
96
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Coronavirus Vaccine and You
« Last post by xasop on June 11, 2021, 01:50:28 PM »
I received my invitation to book an appointment for vaccination today. Finally, this will all be over.

Update: I have made an appointment to be vaccinated. I'll have my second jab at the end of July.
97
Science & Alternative Science / Re: FE and ICBMs
« Last post by WTF_Seriously on June 11, 2021, 01:42:03 PM »
Sane person: Here's all the evidence of test launches of ICBMs

Action 80.  Nuh uh!

It really is getting tiresome.
98
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Coronavirus Vaccine and You
« Last post by garygreen on June 11, 2021, 01:26:12 PM »
The vaccine has not been tested long term.

please cite the long-term health effect studies for covid.
99
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Coronavirus Vaccine and You
« Last post by AllAroundTheWorld on June 11, 2021, 11:50:56 AM »
Tom, touting your viral immunologist as a Trump card has to be some of the most desperate tactics I’ve seen. You know who the vaccine was designed by, right? Instead of clinging to this sad, fallacious argument perhaps find out what other relevant scientists are saying?
This is Tom's MO.
I think we can all agree that there will be a range of opinions even amongst experts and there will be some outliers who have views which are not shared by the majority of experts in a field. So you can find an "expert" who will back up any viewpoint - especially if you are even more honest and quote part of what they say out of context to make it look like they're saying something other than what they're actually saying.

So this is what Tom does, he just finds the expert with the extreme opinion which backs up what he wants to hear and declares them as his star witness. All the other expert opinions are ignored or disregarded. Very dishonest way of arguing but Tom's gotta Tom I guess.
100
Science & Alternative Science / Re: FE and ICBMs
« Last post by Rama Set on June 11, 2021, 11:25:08 AM »
Small missiles work. Large ones don’t. Total Lackey, folks. You can’t make it up.