Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


* * * * * 1 votes

Israel - UFO or Missile?


  • Please log in to reply
723 replies to this topic

#661    Earl.Of.Trumps

Earl.Of.Trumps

    Big C Survivor

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,933 posts
  • Joined:20 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:Boston US

  • One of the beginnings of human emancipation is the ability to know when authority needs to be corrected | Hitchens, adapted

Posted 28 July 2012 - 01:50 AM

View Postlost_shaman, on 27 July 2012 - 10:01 AM, said:

Really Earl? Your source is wikipedia. So who estimated that number?

Isn't the difference only around 50 miles? Your own link say's the Missile is "road-mobile". They may have driven it a few miles to the west. But that doesn't matter because it is not the Missile that hits the target it is the Warheads the Missile releases along it's trajectory.

My source *for now* is wikipedia, yes. Funny, you did not vet JimOmberg's info when he chose RuTube.ru for a "source"
If you all had a source to challenge me, than by all means get it in here.

the difference is "only" about 50 miles...? do you rally think if they had perfect tollerance they would attempt a firing like that?
it is way too close for comfort.

my friend, mobile launcher is one of the options, yes.
the russians said that it was launched form a mobile launcher. too bad they also said from the north of russia, the south east of russia, and southern russia.

it is difficult to figure out what is going on when they lie all the time. and I suspect that is a tactic of theirs.
in telling you four launch sites they really told you NOTHING

in the meantime, Jim says "Kapustin Yar", so ya know what...? that is what we all must agree to.

don't jump my bones, I don't believe ANY of them.  go protest to JimOmberg

you make an interesting point about the warhead. don't know about it. in this launch, however, the russians clearly would have to worry about where that missile goes. that is an absolute must

"If you want to apologize to Jews for WWII, give them some of your land, not some of ours"

~ Mahmoud Ahmadinejad~


"It is easier to fool somebody than it is to convince them they've been fooled"   ~Mark Twain~


#662    Earl.Of.Trumps

Earl.Of.Trumps

    Big C Survivor

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,933 posts
  • Joined:20 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:Boston US

  • One of the beginnings of human emancipation is the ability to know when authority needs to be corrected | Hitchens, adapted

Posted 28 July 2012 - 01:53 AM

View Postbadeskov, on 28 July 2012 - 01:48 AM, said:

Yes, I indeed did and while you are certainly trying, I can by all means of respect see that you still need some more. The Topol-M may have a minimum operational range within certain operational specifications, however (as Jim also explained earlier), you can fire a rocket up at a higher angle of attack and let it come down at much lesser distances. You could even fire it straight up and have it come down into your launch area. Not very effective testing, but certainly possible. That is what I mean by educating yourself. Read up on ballistics and missile technology, then I think you would see a lot of this in a completely different light.  

Cheers,
Badeskov

I wondered where you went.

Badsekov, to be blunt at this point, I am very leery and do not really believe that. Why?
because if that was the case there would be no need to publish a minimum - it would always be as Jim says, ZERO

So I am leery.

I can't prove it either way,, I am leery of that statement

"If you want to apologize to Jews for WWII, give them some of your land, not some of ours"

~ Mahmoud Ahmadinejad~


"It is easier to fool somebody than it is to convince them they've been fooled"   ~Mark Twain~


#663    badeskov

badeskov

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 10,965 posts
  • Joined:27 Aug 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please - Mark Twain

Posted 28 July 2012 - 01:56 AM

View PostEarl.Of.Trumps, on 28 July 2012 - 01:53 AM, said:

I wondered where you went.

Unfortunately work took it's toll.

Quote

Badsekov, to be blunt at this point, I am very leery and do not really believe that. Why?
because if that was the case there would be no need to publish a minimum - it would always be as Jim says, ZERO

So I am leery.

I can't prove it either way,, I am leery of that statement

Please do be blunt. Admittedly, I have not looked into the numbers behind the minimum range, but I am guessing that it is based on it meeting certain operational specifications, specifications that can be compromised on during testing.

Cheers,
Badeskov

"Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention to arrive safely in a pretty and well-preserved body, but rather to skid in broadside, thoroughly used, totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming: Wow!! What a ride!". Said to to Dean Karnazes by a running buddy.

#664    Earl.Of.Trumps

Earl.Of.Trumps

    Big C Survivor

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,933 posts
  • Joined:20 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:Boston US

  • One of the beginnings of human emancipation is the ability to know when authority needs to be corrected | Hitchens, adapted

Posted 28 July 2012 - 02:02 AM

To Lost_Shaman and JimOmberg,,,

first,,, I posted some "perspective" results that I made from very simple calculations.

1) Shaman, you first. You kept telling me I was wrong but gave me no "right" except for some ubiquitous, general term, like point source or something, as opposed to an exact mathematical answer, which you hinted that there is not one. [sigh]

2) Jim, you told me that you "corrected" my math. I did miss the post - sorry.

but I will tell you both this, I was RIGHT ON THE MONEY

http://www.1728.org/angsize.htm

try it. I stick to that figure of about 1/40,000th BTW, it is accurate. (B767 scenario)

now, if you do not know how to use the calculator, I will give you instructions.

here is how it goes.

you have a 6" x 6" card at 10 feet away. (example)

place a card it at 20 feet away. what size must it be to look identical in size in the viewfinder of a camera?

the answer is the very simple 12" x 12"

However, that quadruples the area - but pixels on the screen remain the same

the first card is 36 square inches, the second is 144 square inches. - 4:1

Now, in a picture it is hard - if not impossible to distinguish between the two.

in real life, however, "depth perception" will tell you the two are NOT the same. ten-four?

I make mistakes,,, I do not believe this is one of them.

Edited by Earl.Of.Trumps, 28 July 2012 - 02:08 AM.

"If you want to apologize to Jews for WWII, give them some of your land, not some of ours"

~ Mahmoud Ahmadinejad~


"It is easier to fool somebody than it is to convince them they've been fooled"   ~Mark Twain~


#665    DONTEATUS

DONTEATUS

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 16,701 posts
  • Joined:15 Feb 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Planet TEXAS

Posted 28 July 2012 - 02:14 AM

I`ll just go up and Look ,I bet I can tell what it really was !

Attached Files


This is a Work in Progress!

#666    Earl.Of.Trumps

Earl.Of.Trumps

    Big C Survivor

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,933 posts
  • Joined:20 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:Boston US

  • One of the beginnings of human emancipation is the ability to know when authority needs to be corrected | Hitchens, adapted

Posted 28 July 2012 - 02:48 AM

View PostDONTEATUS, on 28 July 2012 - 02:14 AM, said:

I`ll just go up and Look ,I bet I can tell what it really was !

The blind archer from Korea could figure it out what it is ROFLMAO!!


good evening to ya

"If you want to apologize to Jews for WWII, give them some of your land, not some of ours"

~ Mahmoud Ahmadinejad~


"It is easier to fool somebody than it is to convince them they've been fooled"   ~Mark Twain~


#667    Earl.Of.Trumps

Earl.Of.Trumps

    Big C Survivor

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,933 posts
  • Joined:20 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:Boston US

  • One of the beginnings of human emancipation is the ability to know when authority needs to be corrected | Hitchens, adapted

Posted 28 July 2012 - 03:12 AM

Well, we here at UM in this threadhave a new revelation to share in, thanks to poster JimOmberg.

the Chronolgy is this:

1) We have been operating under the *assumption* that Kapustin Yar is the launch site of this alleged Topol-M missile launch of June 6, and the landing spot was in Shary Shagan in southestern Kazakhstan. I assumed, - SILLY ME, that the missile hit its zenith midpoint, and that is most likely where the Israeli men would see the plume of the missile. Again, silly me.

2) I have posted in detail how Dr. Yigal Pat-El and observer Natan Levi of Israel - based on their location and statements, were actually looking in the direction of a location west of Kazakhstan. that made their view point off by about 30-35 degrees (west), which is non-sensical, at best. Not proof of anything as of yet, but it SHOULD raise a serious red flag in here with all posters.
Psyche101 seemed to be the ONLY one that delved into it. so be it.

3) I then posted, to get a more accurate measurement of how far the missile at its zenith is from Tel Aviv (Pat-El), to following:
The midpoint between KY and SS (launch and land sites) is a city called Zhezkaghen.
The distancce from Tel Aviv to Zhezkaghen is 2033 miles, the height of the missile is 800 miles, so demands Badsekov.
Therefor, the distance from Dr Yifgal Pat-El in Tel Aviv to the missile is - 2184 miles, also a very red flag item for us to ponder.

You know how to make both red flags go away...? Well, congratulations JimOMberg-the-poster!! Igt is very simple!

Two nights ago, after all this time - 7 weeks, JimOmberg made the *astounding* revelation that the Topol M missile was actually seen by Israeli's when the missile was in the Volga Valley - the Volga River Valley to be more precise.

I told JimOmberg I would look into it and get back.

I'M BACK

Here are my NEW calculations, based on Jim's testimony. It seems the western edge of Volga Valley is WEST of Kazakstan, in RUSSIA!! how cool is that! So Jim is basically saying the Israeli's saw the missile close to where it was launched, Kapustin Yar.

Wonderful!

The distance form Tel Aviv to Kapustin Yar is 1403 miles, which is 630 miles less than the the distance to the zenith point, Zhezkaghen. Congratulations, Jim. Nice save.

We don't know how HIGH the missile was when it came into view, Jim is likely checking into that. we don't know how far in the south east direction it traveled when it was seen, either, but very likely, the half-random figure of 1500 miles that I threw out as example long ago, is looking pretty accurate, according to this new data.

however, the location of Kapustin Yar itself is very closely in line to the view vector that Dr. Pat-El saw his apparition.
Natan Levi obviously is looking close to the correct loation as well.

Once again, congratulations JimOmberg, for deleting both red-flag pieces of evidence in one fell swoop, ALMOST.

I say "almost", Jim, because you forgot one thing.


LINK


...... or it didn't happen.

"If you want to apologize to Jews for WWII, give them some of your land, not some of ours"

~ Mahmoud Ahmadinejad~


"It is easier to fool somebody than it is to convince them they've been fooled"   ~Mark Twain~


#668    lost_shaman

lost_shaman

    Alien Abducter

  • Member
  • 5,186 posts
  • Joined:11 Jul 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:TEXAS

Posted 28 July 2012 - 08:07 AM

View PostEarl.Of.Trumps, on 28 July 2012 - 02:02 AM, said:

To Lost_Shaman and JimOmberg,,,

first,,, I posted some "perspective" results that I made from very simple calculations.

1) Shaman, you first. You kept telling me I was wrong but gave me no "right" except for some ubiquitous, general term, like point source or something, as opposed to an exact mathematical answer, which you hinted that there is not one. [sigh]

2) Jim, you told me that you "corrected" my math. I did miss the post - sorry.

but I will tell you both this, I was RIGHT ON THE MONEY

http://www.1728.org/angsize.htm

try it. I stick to that figure of about 1/40,000th BTW, it is accurate. (B767 scenario)

now, if you do not know how to use the calculator, I will give you instructions.

here is how it goes.

you have a 6" x 6" card at 10 feet away. (example)

place a card it at 20 feet away. what size must it be to look identical in size in the viewfinder of a camera?

the answer is the very simple 12" x 12"

However, that quadruples the area - but pixels on the screen remain the same

the first card is 36 square inches, the second is 144 square inches. - 4:1

Now, in a picture it is hard - if not impossible to distinguish between the two.

in real life, however, "depth perception" will tell you the two are NOT the same. ten-four?

I make mistakes,,, I do not believe this is one of them.

Earl,

If you had payed any attention to trying to comprehend what I was telling you in those posts of mine talking about this you'd know where and how you are making a mistake. The Human Eye can't see the Angular size of an object after it's Angular size is less than about 1 arc minute. After that you see the object as a POINT SOURCE! It's Angular size can be very very super small, but you will still see a point source if there is enough Light reflecting back towards your eye's to be detected.

All the Stars in the Sky are seen as point sources. They all have incredibly small Angular sizes! Angular sizes so small that they make your B767 example at 1500 miles look like a GIANT object! You WILL see it as a point source IF there is enough Light reflecting back towards Earth for your Eye's to register. Go look at the Stars. All are point sources. Yes, some look bigger and brighter and some look smaller and dimmer. The difference to your Eye's is the amount of/or intensity of the Light entering your Eye's and not the objects true Angular size or Distance.

You can't look at the Night Sky and point out big bright Stars and say they are bigger in Angular size and closer to Earth and that small looking dimmer Stars have a smaller Angular size and are further away from Earth! You'd be completely wrong!

Why? Because your Eye's see objects smaller than around 1 acr minute in Angular size as point sources. Point sources are not "Microdots" Earl! Angular size size and Distance can not be determined by observing a point source. This is the important part here that your seeming to ignore.

Earl re-read this post if you need to and understand what I'm trying to tell you here. I'm not making any of this up. The same is true for Camera's and Telescopes except the difference is the Angular size of the devices resolution limit that may be larger or smaller than the ~1 arc minute resolution limit of the Human Eye @ 20/20 vision.

You keep asking for links. Forget links! Go outside before Dawn, find Jupiter and estimate it's Angular size Earl. Then wait 30 minutes as the sky starts to birighten and do that again. If you see Jupiter as being smaller after the Sky gets brighter, it isn't because the Planet grew smaller or drifted further away is it? You don't need a link for this, go out look at the Sky and see for yourself what an object like Jupiter (a POINT SOURCE) looks like. Look at the Stars and see what point sources look like.

I'm trying to help you understand this Earl.

Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And if you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you. - Friedrich Nietzsche

#669    bmk1245

bmk1245

    puny village idiot

  • Member
  • 3,947 posts
  • Joined:16 Aug 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Vilnius, Lithuania

Posted 28 July 2012 - 10:48 AM

View PostEarl.Of.Trumps, on 28 July 2012 - 01:42 AM, said:

let me ask you something, if "another source" does not mention minimum range, does that mean, does that mean it  does not exist? that would seem to be the author or editor's choice but clearly the term exists and it has MEANING
[...]
I'm no expert on ICMB's, but, as logic dictates and as badeskov mentioned, min range would depend on operational specs (hm... if you would vent more thrust, min range would decrease, isn't it?).


View PostEarl.Of.Trumps, on 28 July 2012 - 01:42 AM, said:

[...]Obviously I believe NONE of them but I will let posters in here choose their own launch site, of course.
[...]
Here is the problem: all sources south of Kazakhstan (Kapustin Yar - Sary Shagan "line") give us left-right direction, while all sources north of that line - right-left. Do you have any source that would show right-left, say, from the same Israel, Turkey, Syria, etc?

Arguing with fool is like playing chess with pigeon: he will scatter pieces, peck King's crown, crap on bishop, and fly away bragging how he won the game... (heard once, author unknown).
Zhoom! What was that? That was your life, Mate! Oh, that was quick. Do I get another? Sorry, Mate. That's your lot. Basil Fawlty (John Cleese).

#670    badeskov

badeskov

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 10,965 posts
  • Joined:27 Aug 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please - Mark Twain

Posted 28 July 2012 - 11:12 AM

View PostEarl.Of.Trumps, on 28 July 2012 - 03:12 AM, said:

Well, we here at UM in this threadhave a new revelation to share in, thanks to poster JimOmberg.

the Chronolgy is this:

1) We have been operating under the *assumption* that Kapustin Yar is the launch site of this alleged Topol-M missile launch of June 6, and the landing spot was in Shary Shagan in southestern Kazakhstan. I assumed, - SILLY ME, that the missile hit its zenith midpoint, and that is most likely where the Israeli men would see the plume of the missile. Again, silly me.

2) I have posted in detail how Dr. Yigal Pat-El and observer Natan Levi of Israel - based on their location and statements, were actually looking in the direction of a location west of Kazakhstan. that made their view point off by about 30-35 degrees (west), which is non-sensical, at best. Not proof of anything as of yet, but it SHOULD raise a serious red flag in here with all posters.
Psyche101 seemed to be the ONLY one that delved into it. so be it.

3) I then posted, to get a more accurate measurement of how far the missile at its zenith is from Tel Aviv (Pat-El), to following:
The midpoint between KY and SS (launch and land sites) is a city called Zhezkaghen.
The distancce from Tel Aviv to Zhezkaghen is 2033 miles, the height of the missile is 800 miles, so demands Badsekov.
Therefor, the distance from Dr Yifgal Pat-El in Tel Aviv to the missile is - 2184 miles, also a very red flag item for us to ponder.

You know how to make both red flags go away...? Well, congratulations JimOMberg-the-poster!! Igt is very simple!

Two nights ago, after all this time - 7 weeks, JimOmberg made the *astounding* revelation that the Topol M missile was actually seen by Israeli's when the missile was in the Volga Valley - the Volga River Valley to be more precise.

I told JimOmberg I would look into it and get back.

I'M BACK

Here are my NEW calculations, based on Jim's testimony. It seems the western edge of Volga Valley is WEST of Kazakstan, in RUSSIA!! how cool is that! So Jim is basically saying the Israeli's saw the missile close to where it was launched, Kapustin Yar.

Wonderful!

The distance form Tel Aviv to Kapustin Yar is 1403 miles, which is 630 miles less than the the distance to the zenith point, Zhezkaghen. Congratulations, Jim. Nice save.

We don't know how HIGH the missile was when it came into view, Jim is likely checking into that. we don't know how far in the south east direction it traveled when it was seen, either, but very likely, the half-random figure of 1500 miles that I threw out as example long ago, is looking pretty accurate, according to this new data.

however, the location of Kapustin Yar itself is very closely in line to the view vector that Dr. Pat-El saw his apparition.
Natan Levi obviously is looking close to the correct loation as well.

Once again, congratulations JimOmberg, for deleting both red-flag pieces of evidence in one fell swoop, ALMOST.

I say "almost", Jim, because you forgot one thing.


LINK


Earl,

By all means of respect, but posters here are actually trying to give away knowledge here for free. And I suggest you take it. LS has explained, very well I daresay, the meaning of point sources and what that means to seen by the naked eye. Jim has explained, from the best of his knowledge (and I have no doubts that it is vast), the technology of ICBMs and Russian geography. You have yet to poke any holes in any of that. Instead you hang on to some ridiculous idea that it could not be a missile for reasons I cannot even begin to fathom.

Frankly, you seem to avoiding facts.

Quote

...... or it didn't happen.

Dude, you have to be kidding.

Cheers,
Badeskov

"Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention to arrive safely in a pretty and well-preserved body, but rather to skid in broadside, thoroughly used, totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming: Wow!! What a ride!". Said to to Dean Karnazes by a running buddy.

#671    badeskov

badeskov

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 10,965 posts
  • Joined:27 Aug 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please - Mark Twain

Posted 28 July 2012 - 11:48 AM

View PostEarl.Of.Trumps, on 28 July 2012 - 03:12 AM, said:

<snip>

3) I then posted, to get a more accurate measurement of how far the missile at its zenith is from Tel Aviv (Pat-El), to following:
The midpoint between KY and SS (launch and land sites) is a city called Zhezkaghen.
The distancce from Tel Aviv to Zhezkaghen is 2033 miles, the height of the missile is 800 miles, so demands Badsekov.
Therefor, the distance from Dr Yifgal Pat-El in Tel Aviv to the missile is - 2184 miles, also a very red flag item for us to ponder.

How do I demand that the altitude of the missile is 800 miles? I demand nothing. However, from physics it is a reasonable assumption. You are correct, we do not know the altitude, but from a ballistic trajectory we can guess pretty well. Basic physics.

By all means of respect, but you have entered this discussion showing a rather profound lack of knowledge in not only missile technology, but also basic physics. If I were you I'd listen to what posters here are actually saying and take that into consideration.

Cheers,
Badeskov

"Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention to arrive safely in a pretty and well-preserved body, but rather to skid in broadside, thoroughly used, totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming: Wow!! What a ride!". Said to to Dean Karnazes by a running buddy.

#672    Earl.Of.Trumps

Earl.Of.Trumps

    Big C Survivor

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,933 posts
  • Joined:20 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:Boston US

  • One of the beginnings of human emancipation is the ability to know when authority needs to be corrected | Hitchens, adapted

Posted 29 July 2012 - 12:20 AM

View Postlost_shaman, on 28 July 2012 - 08:07 AM, said:

Earl,

If you had payed any attention to trying to comprehend what I was telling you in those posts of mine talking about this you'd know where and how you are making a mistake. The Human Eye can't see the Angular size of an object after it's Angular size is less than about 1 arc minute. After that you see the object as a POINT SOURCE! It's Angular size can be very very super small, but you will still see a point source if there is enough Light reflecting back towards your eye's to be detected.

All the Stars in the Sky are seen as point sources. They all have incredibly small Angular sizes! Angular sizes so small that they make your B767 example at 1500 miles look like a GIANT object! You WILL see it as a point source IF there is enough Light reflecting back towards Earth for your Eye's to register. Go look at the Stars. All are point sources. Yes, some look bigger and brighter and some look smaller and dimmer. The difference to your Eye's is the amount of/or intensity of the Light entering your Eye's and not the objects true Angular size or Distance.

You can't look at the Night Sky and point out big bright Stars and say they are bigger in Angular size and closer to Earth and that small looking dimmer Stars have a smaller Angular size and are further away from Earth! You'd be completely wrong!

Why? Because your Eye's see objects smaller than around 1 acr minute in Angular size as point sources. Point sources are not "Microdots" Earl! Angular size size and Distance can not be determined by observing a point source. This is the important part here that your seeming to ignore.

Earl re-read this post if you need to and understand what I'm trying to tell you here. I'm not making any of this up. The same is true for Camera's and Telescopes except the difference is the Angular size of the devices resolution limit that may be larger or smaller than the ~1 arc minute resolution limit of the Human Eye @ 20/20 vision.

You keep asking for links. Forget links! Go outside before Dawn, find Jupiter and estimate it's Angular size Earl. Then wait 30 minutes as the sky starts to birighten and do that again. If you see Jupiter as being smaller after the Sky gets brighter, it isn't because the Planet grew smaller or drifted further away is it? You don't need a link for this, go out look at the Sky and see for yourself what an object like Jupiter (a POINT SOURCE) looks like. Look at the Stars and see what point sources look like.

I'm trying to help you understand this Earl.


I do , of course get the sense that you are trying to help me understand.

I also have to try to accept the fact that as an air vehicle moves away from an observer, basically, it does not get smaller and smaller. and that no matter how far away it is, it will always be a point source to the human eye.

yah.

I have a very hard time with that.

what if the object was a fly at 100 miles?

well, just saying?!?!?! everything has limits.

"If you want to apologize to Jews for WWII, give them some of your land, not some of ours"

~ Mahmoud Ahmadinejad~


"It is easier to fool somebody than it is to convince them they've been fooled"   ~Mark Twain~


#673    booNyzarC

booNyzarC

    Forum Divinity

  • Closed
  • 13,536 posts
  • Joined:18 Aug 2010
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 29 July 2012 - 12:33 AM

Only trolls can be this intentionally obtuse.


#674    Earl.Of.Trumps

Earl.Of.Trumps

    Big C Survivor

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,933 posts
  • Joined:20 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:Boston US

  • One of the beginnings of human emancipation is the ability to know when authority needs to be corrected | Hitchens, adapted

Posted 29 July 2012 - 12:35 AM

View Postbmk1245, on 28 July 2012 - 10:48 AM, said:

I'm no expert on ICMB's, but, as logic dictates and as badeskov mentioned, min range would depend on operational specs (hm... if you would vent more thrust, min range would decrease, isn't it?).


yes, IF the Topol M truly vents thrust. you have only taken someone's word for that. have you seen that in a dependable link?
Also, if it was capable of venting thrust, would they not take that into consideration in defining the minimum range, that is define minimum for when thrust vents are wide open?


Quote


Here is the problem: all sources south of Kazakhstan (Kapustin Yar - Sary Shagan "line") give us left-right direction, while all sources north of that line - right-left. Do you have any source that would show right-left, say, from the same Israel, Turkey, Syria, etc?

No and if that remained in my original text, I am sorry, I meant to take that section out. I must have forgotten and I appologise

View PostbooNyzarC, on 29 July 2012 - 12:33 AM, said:

Only trolls can be this intentionally obtuse.

I thought you were taking a hike?

"If you want to apologize to Jews for WWII, give them some of your land, not some of ours"

~ Mahmoud Ahmadinejad~


"It is easier to fool somebody than it is to convince them they've been fooled"   ~Mark Twain~


#675    Earl.Of.Trumps

Earl.Of.Trumps

    Big C Survivor

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,933 posts
  • Joined:20 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:Boston US

  • One of the beginnings of human emancipation is the ability to know when authority needs to be corrected | Hitchens, adapted

Posted 29 July 2012 - 12:37 AM

View Postbadeskov, on 28 July 2012 - 11:12 AM, said:

Earl,

By all means of respect, but posters here are actually trying to give away knowledge here for free. And I suggest you take it. LS has explained, very well I daresay, the meaning of point sources and what that means to seen by the naked eye. Jim has explained, from the best of his knowledge (and I have no doubts that it is vast), the technology of ICBMs and Russian geography. You have yet to poke any holes in any of that. Instead you hang on to some ridiculous idea that it could not be a missile for reasons I cannot even begin to fathom.

Frankly, you seem to avoiding facts.



Dude, you have to be kidding.

Cheers,
Badeskov

can you see a fly from 100 miles?

who's kidding???

"If you want to apologize to Jews for WWII, give them some of your land, not some of ours"

~ Mahmoud Ahmadinejad~


"It is easier to fool somebody than it is to convince them they've been fooled"   ~Mark Twain~





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users