|
|
cydoniaquest
Joined: 12 Aug 2000
Posts: 797
Location: nowhere |
 Sat Mar 03, 2001 10:56 pm
|
 |
|
I ask the same questions of you, Mr. Sucks! Do you have the inteligence to respond with a rational solution? |
| |
|
|
nsasucks
Joined: 02 Jan 2001
Posts: 526
Location: Earth |
|
Sat Mar 03, 2001 11:00 pm
|
|
|
I think, CQ, what their point is, is that all these nations are following a script for war, and like Orwell's 1984, the enemies are real enough to keep war dollars flowing, but only on lands agreed upon in advance by the warring parties. For example, China and the USA will agree to war, but say in Indochina. It keeps the poor killed off and production high, and coffers overflowing with gold.
I agree with that assessment. |
| |
|
|
Moose
Joined: 02 Jan 2001
Posts: 24
Location: Fargo, ND |
|
Sun Mar 04, 2001 10:34 am
|
|
|
I seriously doubt whether George W Bush, could find his own ass with both hands and a road map. As for the 1.5 trillion dollar tax-cut and also funding every pet project the idiots can dream up...it can only mean one thing: inflation.
I'm just one of those dreamers who when it comes to choosing between welfare for those who wear Guccis, and those who wear shoes from Pay-less...well I'll choose the latter every single time.
What's the weather like up there on Cydonia, Mr. Quest? Or should we call you Johnny?
|
| |
|
|
cydoniaquest
Joined: 12 Aug 2000
Posts: 797
Location: nowhere |
|
Sun Mar 04, 2001 1:30 pm
|
|
|
Duh....Moose, don't try so hard to think up them witty lines, you might fry a brain cell or something, and you obviously need to hold on to all you can keep.
|
| |
|
|
Swedishoo
Joined: 09 Aug 2000
Posts: 429
Location: NC |
|
Sun Mar 04, 2001 4:55 pm
|
|
|
Cydoniaquest, naturally we use disrespectful words when addressing you. There is no other appropriate language possible. I assure you our unexpressed thoughts are *far more colorful*. You flatter yourself if you imagine you fooling anyone about who you are and why you are here.
Sedona, Diane right? Cy is not someone one should be suspecious of. You make it sound as if he is some secret agent on the "message board mission" ...to do what? Talk to Us?? I know Jason. He is a highly intelligent and diverse person who has much to say on any given subject. Now when it comes to SDI, I lean toward more NSAsucks's views, but that certainly doesn't mean Jason's inputs are not important. Being that Bush has included this technology in the budget, whether it be an actual expense or not, we would be a fool to not listen to what a SDI proponent has to say.
Christy ~ Swedishoo
|
| |
|
|
cydoniaquest
Joined: 12 Aug 2000
Posts: 797
Location: nowhere |
|
Sun Mar 04, 2001 7:51 pm
|
|
|
Well thank you Christy!! 
I came here this morning expecting something slanderous from the Moose-man (it's probably coming). Instead, I get these kind words from you! You are a beautiful person Christy, and you do have a powerful point: It is possible for people to have differing views without attacking each other!
I know this because I hear it all the time on the radio. If you listen to a good talk show host interview someone, there is usually respectful conversation even though both parties may disagree with each other. That is a rare thing indeed, it seems, on message boards. If you read back this thread, you'll notice that people appear to be responding negatively because I stated some conservative viewpoints, and it's apparent that I'm a conservative, rather than the specific subjects of my message. Sedona makes no attempt to even address the subject but instead goes straight on the attack! What did I ever say to Sedona that deserves such a response? In fact, I don't believe I've ever really had a conversation with Sedona on this board.
This leads me to wondering several things; Are there many conservatives who hold the chemtrail theory? Does one have to believe in these NWO conspiracy theories in order to observe and study chemtrails? Is that like an initiation into the club? It seems that's what most people here think. Why is it when someone presents a view that differs from the prevailing conspiracy theory of the day, that this warrants attack. My views may not even differ all that much from some people here in many areas, yet because I’m a conservative some people are automatically suspicious. This is a strange phenomenon.
Is the art of conversation lost?
|
| |
|
|
cydoniaquest
Joined: 12 Aug 2000
Posts: 797
Location: nowhere |
|
Mon Mar 05, 2001 2:32 am
|
|
|
Now for me Christy, this is exciting stuff! If you've ever seen the movie "Real Genius" you know they use a similar contraption to heat a big container of Jiffy-Pop popcorn to explode a house....well...that's a tough one to visualize, you just have to see the movie..
The significant thing to note about lasers and directed energy weapons is that they travel at the speed of light, and therefore solve the lead-time problem of targeting an enemy ICBM. If we were using electromagnetic railguns (or smart rocks) by contrast, the shooter must be very fast and deadly accurate, because shooting down a missile is like hitting a bullet with a bullet. One must also lead the target and adjust for velocity of the fired "smart-rock" projectile to coincide with the velocity of the ICBM. And if this is fired upward from the ground, you've got to take into account the effect of gravity producing a parabolic trajectory, and the effects of atmospheric drag slowing down the projectile. Even then, a slight course change of the enemy missile could cause a non-guided projectile to miss it altogether. But a directed energy weapon solves the problem. The minute the target missile is locked on and the instant the laser is fired it will hit the target, requiring little or no lead time. I wonder how long the beam must remain on the missile to weaken its outer casing though?
It seems to me if they are public with this particular information about the Boeing project, that what they have behind closed doors must be truly spectacular. By the same token, if they already have particle beam technology or EMP technology similar to the early Tesla devices, you can bet they are not going public with this any time soon!
If you study a laser, you will note that the design used to create a laser tube is very similar to Tesla's early radiant energy tubes and what was referred to as a "death ray". The design for EMP producing tubes is also very similar to laser with the difference being that laser tubes use a partially silvered mirror to cause the light to bounce back and fourth within, so as to build energy until finally, the concentration is uniform and powerful when the light beam escapes.
This leads me to a Jerry Springer final thought:
What if we had a sealed vacuum tube with internal walls completely mirrored. Then imagine we introduce a light beam and quickly seal the tube back up. Would the light beam inside keep bouncing off the internal mirrored walls forever, meaning that it would stay eternally lighted within?....And if that light beam was perfectly in phase with each reflected beam, would the amplitude and energy of the internal light continue to build geometrically until it was finally released....sort of like a light grenade? Hmmmmm...food for thought...
|
| |
|
|
defender
Joined: 27 Oct 2000
Posts: 1113
Location: Level 64 |
|
Tue Mar 06, 2001 7:20 am
|
|
|
I think I'd have to agree with both NSA Sucks and CydoniaQuest here...
SDI may work, if it's real, that's the question. Have conflicts between nations been staged (historically) for the benefit of industrialists, weapons manufacturers and power brokers? Yes, I think that is a fact of life. That's reality.
Could SDI work, probably. I think comparison to the Maginot Line would not apply, because I believe technology could, in theory, protect us from a missile attack as CQ has suggested. Maybe HAARP is all about creating a magnetic disturbance (EMP) that could render nuclear weapons relatively harmless?
That's where we civilians (sheeple?) are caught in the game, 'better safe than sorry'. It might not work (SDI), but what choice do we have? That's if we buy into the nuclear threat scenario, but what choice do we have? They may be crazy enough to use them.
Was Clinton giving up; the Panama Canal, strategic ports on west coast, nuclear weapons secrets, not to mention; continuance of a phony drug war (that keeps the U.S. in a constant state of turmoil), acceptence of campaign contributions from drug 'kingpins' AND the Chinese military(!!!),.... "Goals 2000", elimination of prayer in school, disarming of U.S. and attacks on 2nd ammendment, continued abandandoment of American POW/MIA's etc, etc, etc.... Is it all just the Clintons & the Red Chinese?... or does it reflect a policy that amounts to a continued doctrine of MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction), that's been going on for decades to keep the power elite in control of human affairs and the 'masses' in confusion and fear? How are we supposed to know whats real, and whats disinformation? We just have to trust our own senses and experiences and take it from there.
But, if what we know to have happened during the Clinton administration(s) is true, why isn't Clinton being imprisoned or executed for treason? Could it be that he's 'just following orders'?
Without all of the facts and considering the reality that we as Americans don't really seem to have any control over what the military does, (not to mention what any foreign entity does) apparently we just have to trust them, or... question and complain on a forum website.
The direction of U.S. govt/military seems to proceed regardless of any civilian opinions. They don't seem to need any input from us. It's like that executive order(?) that has kept the U.S. in a state of emergency since 1939? In effect, the American people have been out of control for at least that long. If I find the link, I'll post it, but I'm sure many of you have heard of it.
I'm not saying it's pointless to question authority, just that we are looking at two distinct forms of reasoning, both are correct depending on your point of view.
[Edited 3 times, lastly by defender on 03-06-2001] |
| |
|
|
cydoniaquest
Joined: 12 Aug 2000
Posts: 797
Location: nowhere |
|
Tue Mar 06, 2001 10:06 pm
|
|
|
"I think I'd have to agree with both NSA Sucks and CydoniaQuest here...
SDI may work, if it's real, that's the question. Have conflicts between nations been staged (historically) for the benefit of industrialists, weapons manufacturers and power brokers? Yes, I think that is a fact of life. That's reality."
I would agree wars have benefited industry. WWII even brought this nation out of a depression. But to say most wars are staged is to ignore the fact that we have real threats from other nations, we have real evil leaders in the world who threaten this nation's security. The Oliver Stone concept that wars are only fought for economic benefit of private industry is to ignore that we have legitimate reasons for going to war in defense of our democratic republic, a free people, and American national interests.
"Could SDI work, probably. I think comparison to the Maginot Line would not apply, because I believe technology could, in theory, protect us from a missile attack as CQ has suggested. Maybe HAARP is all about creating a magnetic disturbance (EMP) that could render nuclear weapons relatively harmless?"
There are several interesting articles (I'll have to find) that support this theory and speculate this is in fact the exact purpose of HAARP.
"That's where we civilians (sheeple?) are caught in the game, 'better safe than sorry'. It might not work (SDI), but what choice do we have? That's if we buy into the nuclear threat scenario, but what choice do we have? They may be crazy enough to use them."
They are crazy enough to use them. We are talking about terrorist nations getting Nukes here, mainly supplied by China and Russia. Russia and China themselves expect and are preparing to use them, no question about it. It's just a question of when. If we had continued down the road Clinton was going down, and had we elected Gore, no doubt the door of opportunity for the Russians and Chinese to launch their attacks would be opened sooner than later
"Was Clinton giving up; the Panama Canal, strategic ports on west coast, nuclear weapons secrets, not to mention; continuance of a phony drug war (that keeps the U.S. in a constant state of turmoil), acceptence of campaign contributions from drug 'kingpins' AND the Chinese military(!!!),.... "Goals 2000", elimination of prayer in school, disarming of U.S. and attacks on 2nd ammendment, continued abandandoment of American POW/MIA's etc, etc, etc.... Is it all just the Clintons & the Red Chinese?... or does it reflect a policy that amounts to a continued doctrine of MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction), that's been going on for decades to keep the power elite in control of human affairs and the 'masses' in confusion and fear?"
I'm convinced that selling the farm to China was purely Clinton. I can get real detailed and specific into exactly how this was done by the Clinton administration. There are many books out now on this topic, that document everything thoroughly. "China Threat" and "Betrayal" by Bill Gertz to just name a couple. In fact, Clinton may have single-handedly destabalized the world as the Bush administration is finding out now with Colin Powell's recent sobering visit to the Middle East.
M.A.D (Mutual Assured Destruction) is just the cold war era policy that says if the Russians launched a nuclear attack against us, we would launch one against them and both our countries would be reduced to rubble. It is only an effective deterrent as long as the leaders of both countries remain sane......but that's the problem. We occasionally come across the insane leader now and then in a world where every banana republic now has "the Bomb". That reason alone justifies S.D.I in my opinion.
"How are we supposed to know whats real, and whats disinformation? We just have to trust our own senses and experiences and take it from there."
Exactly! Common sense and logic, are the best methods..
"But, if what we know to have happened during the Clinton administration(s) is true, why isn't Clinton being imprisoned or executed for treason? Could it be that he's 'just following orders'?"
Clinton follows nobody's orders but his own based on his own petty desires and ambitions, and the desires of the people who contributed to his power. But he did play into the desires of many powerful people in this government and outside this government that do not have American best interests at heart. I'm convinced that there are practicing communists in congress and other high positions of government who would love to see a "new world order" scenario come to pass....and Clinton served to help them in this objective. I'm not as convinced that industrialists such as those members of the Trilateral Commision are thrilled with the world government or communist scenario though, because they require free markets and capitalizm for their own existence.
"Without all of the facts and considering the reality that we as Americans don't really seem to have any control over what the military does, (not to mention what any foreign entity does) apparently we just have to trust them, or... question and complain on a forum website."
I differ in the respect that I believe our vote still counts. I believe voter fraud is a heavy reality, but I do believe voter fraud tends to favor socialists more than conservatives because the socialists are the ones committing it. The fact that GW won, is testimony to me that the vote does still count and the American people are for the most part, conservative. Through our vote and the people we elect into office, we therefore control our military. Electing the right commander in chief is the first step and the best step, in the right direction if you want the military to be used correctly.
[Edited 1 times, lastly by cydoniaquest on 03-06-2001] |
| |
|
|
nsasucks
Joined: 02 Jan 2001
Posts: 526
Location: Earth |
|
Tue Mar 06, 2001 11:14 pm
|
|
|
Defender has it nailed dead on. I'd like to add, that voting simply is a shell games for the public. Documentation too established for it to be otherwise. It's like free enterprise, as long as "they" will allow it, they won't kill your startup, but step onto someone's turf....
So, dears, it sucks to see it all go down like it is, and it sucks that most CT-aware people have the same spine as an amoeba, and it sucks that I still don't spell check my posts. |
| |
|
|
Deborah
Joined: 30 Jul 2000
Posts: 731
Location: East Coast |
|
Sat Mar 10, 2001 8:10 pm
|
|
|
Desert Storm: The First Space War
http://www.au.af.mil/au/database/projects/ay1997/acsc/97-0563/dstorm/dstorm.htm
Intro:
Some have called Desert Storm the first "space war," but the real difference between Desert Storm and previous conflicts was the breadth and scale in which space, military and Gray Space, was used. Every space mission played a part, in fact, the most satellite ground stations and pieces of user equipment in history were deployed to the theater of operations-all to enable the warfighter on the ground to reach out and touch space.....
"GRAY SPACE" and the Warfighter
"Today, the ultimate high ground is space."
http://www.au.af.mil/au/database/projects/ay1997/acsc/97-0563/
Intro:
Almost simultaneously as man put artificial satellites into orbit around the earth, he began exploiting them for commercial, military and national security purposes. As civilian use of space has grown along with the military's, the recent pace of civilian technological sophistication has quickly narrowed the US military's lead. These space services now "for hire," are in direct competition with the military and may pose a considerable threat to future military operations against even non-space powers, who can buy satellite services, often simply using the Internet. Military forces have traditionally been labeled blue for friendly and red for adversary, but these satellite systems do not fit into either category. We thus define "Gray Space" to reflect these systems available to the general populace that could potentially be used against the US and its allies for hostile purposes. Gray Space systems pose unique military, political, diplomatic and informational challenges to conflicts and the war planners who must prepare for them.....
SPACE: A NEW STRATEGIC FRONTIER
http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/moor.html
Excerpt:
Despite some of their shortcomings, the operations in Grenada, Libya, Grenada, and Panama were key milestones for space operations and contributed to our knowledge of the employment of space capabilities. The real test, however, was Operation Desert Storm. Air Force Chief of Staff Gen Merrill A. McPeak has described Desert Storm as "the first space war." This war was a watershed event in military space applications because for the first time, space systems were both integral to the conduct of terrestrial conflict and crucial to the outcome of the war. During the five-month period of Operation Desert Shield, while the terrestrial logistic tail was being established to support the coming Desert Storm operation, the space infrastructure was also being created in-theater. A robust mix of user sets, mobile terminals, and portable receivers for receiving and disseminating space-based surveillance, weather, communications, and navigational data was deployed. Other major commands also began considering space solutions to improve their mission effectiveness. Once hostilities began, space systems were ready and made vital contributions.
Technology and Air War
http://www.afa.org/magazine/21_century/technology_air_war/
Excerpt:
Precision Weapons. Precision guided munitions (PGMs) largely swung the outcome of the Gulf War by quickly shutting down Iraq's air defenses. Such munitions already have provided a thousandfold increase in destructive power, compared to unguided bombs. As the US approaches near-zero-miss-distance accuracies, it can design and build smaller munitions and perhaps maintain fewer stocks.
Near-term systems include PGM upgrades and the Joint Direct Attack Munition. Next-generation sensor-fuzed smart weapons will be able recognize, identify, and sort targets even as their sensors guide them, achieving accuracies measured in centimeters rather than meters.
The march of technology is taking the United States away from primary reliance on the time-tested means of attack--putting iron on a target. US forces also will use disruptive measures, such as energy (lasers and high-power microwave bursts), electrons (directed radio-frequency energy), and deception.
Also in development are "information munitions" to attack, destroy, confuse, or fool information systems. This portends capabilities for entering a command's computers and destroying or distorting files. Information warfare techniques could enable a warfighter to sift through an enemy's e-mail, discover locations of his weapons, and scramble his air defense computers.
High-power microwave and laser weapons may work in tandem with or replace many traditional explosive weapons. They may, for example, penetrate an enemy fighter cockpit, illuminate the fire warning light, shut down digital engine controls, or make other surreptitious inputs like penetrating flight controls and forcing an uncommanded break turn. At the least, this will destroy formation integrity and make the enemy predictable. It will also surprise his socks off the first time it happens..... |
| |
|
|
 
|
|
 Goto page Previous
1, 2
All times are GMT. The time now is Sat May 26, 2012 1:14 am
|
|
|
|
|
Login
