Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
It has a smaller cannon with less rounds, and it flies faster and can't loiter as long, but it's more than capable of carrying the missiles used against tanks (which are the most effective anti-tank weapons anyway).I don't think that you understand how the ground support role works.
I'm not the one makingbaseless claims. When you have the ships logs you can present your "evidence" of a "round" earth.What do ship's logs have to do with the shape of the earth?
Survivability in the sense that it can fly with 1 engine, with an elevated and heavily armoured cockpit and airframe. It will still go down if it loses a wing to a missile. It certainly couldn't fly against modern AA tanks like these. This is why the F-35 will be a better jet, it is capable of both Wild Weasel missions and CAS.Sure, anything that goes up in the air can be shot down. The A-10 was designed to get down and dirty and take a beating. How much of a beating is the F-35 designed to take? What happens if an F-35 loses an engine. Oops, it only has one. Will the F-35 be able to survive AAA, let alone the loss of a wing? I doubt it. The F-35 is trying to do many things while the A-10 just does one thing: kill armor, and it's very good at that job.
Yes, because the Iraqi military had literally no air force. There were a couple of dog fights throughout the entire war, but the Allies had air superiority nearly the entire time. When you've got air superiority, the A-10 is a great jet. But when the enemy is organised, has AAA and an air force worth a damn, the A-10 is in trouble. It's slow, it's not stealthy, and despite being more armoured than an F-16, it cannot withstand heavy AAA fire.
Please post your ships logs.What makes you think that ship's logs are in the public record?
They can all launch rockets. They have also all found that sustained orbit is impossible.
Citation required.
Are you saying that you don't think they can launch rockets?
Incorrect.Tell that to what used to be Iraq's army.As for the A-10, it's an expensive old plane that is quickly coming to the end of its service life. It found a niche in the CAS role, but in a real war it would be almost entirely useless.That's what they said just before the first Gulf War.
The Gulf War was not a real war.
That's really got nothing to do with the A-10.
The A-10 was used in combat for the first time during the Gulf War in 1991, destroying more than 900 Iraqi tanks, 2,000 other military vehicles and 1,200 artillery pieces, making it by far the most effective aircraft of the war.[5] A-10s also shot down two Iraqi helicopters with the GAU-8 cannon.
Would you, or anyone, care to show how the anti-moon could explain the penumbral and umbral stages of the lunar eclipse? A simple diagram showing the moon, anti-moon, any source of illumination for the moon (if the sun is not self-luminous) and the flat earth would go a long way in shutting up the non-believers."Blood Moon" is a nickname given to a total eclipse of the moon. There is nothing religious about it and it certainly doesn't prove that "God is real" or that "the moon is fake". Where are you getting these notions?
An eclipse is an obscuring of the light from one celestial body by the passage of another between it and the observer or between it and its source of illumination. It is an observable phenomenon with a scientific explanation, and the fact that eclipse exist is actually evidence that the Earth is round... since the shadow of Earth on the moon is round.
Someone has already told you that the shadow on the moon is from the anti-moon.
http://wiki.tfes.org/Antimoon
Tell that to what used to be Iraq's army.As for the A-10, it's an expensive old plane that is quickly coming to the end of its service life. It found a niche in the CAS role, but in a real war it would be almost entirely useless.That's what they said just before the first Gulf War.
The Gulf War was not a real war.
As for the A-10, it's an expensive old plane that is quickly coming to the end of its service life. It found a niche in the CAS role, but in a real war it would be almost entirely useless.That's what they said just before the first Gulf War.
We have found the anti potato! Holy holy is the spud thy holy!! Someone go get the Pam!This is the point where any further serious discussion becomes impossible.
Also, even if the pictures were taken on film, why are there little plus signs all over it? They could have easily edited those out, but they didn't. I'm guessing NASA put those plus signs on some off the pictures to make it seem like they were using some high-tech space recorder that superimposes those plus signs all over the picture. I don't buy it.Yes, crosshairs etched onto a Reseau plate is high tech.
What method did you use to measure Antarctica?How can you be sure? Have you ever measured Antarctica?
Yes.
http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/about_antarctica/teacher_resources/resources/factsheets/factsheet_geostats_print.pdf
Because I'm pretty sure Antarctic isn't that big.How can you be sure? Have you ever measured Antarctica?
Who is honestly going to shoot down a 777 that May or may not have passengers?Who indeed?
lol, North Korea can't even feed its people, let alone successfully launch a satellite.What does one have to do with the other?
The scientific method goes a little something like this; make something up, then see if you can prove it is true. That is about it, is it not?The FE method goes a little something like this; make something up, then claim it's true without bothering to prove it. That is about it, is it not?
Citation, please.you know Alfred Wallace disproved the Bedford level experiment
And was promptly found to have cheated by a court of law.
In FET it's a consequence of the shadow of the Aetheric wind, which is what causes Coriolis as well.Just out of curiosity, is there any research being done to detect and quantify this "Aetheric wind", or will it remain a magical solution that we just need to take on faith?