Here’s some of the Things we got waiting for any nation who thinks, the reason we are alowing our military to decrease is because of lack of funding: http://www.cheniere.org/books/analysis/history.htm
By: SOC - 20th March 2006 at 04:54
Talk about fiction… what sort of cloud cover would be at 80,000 ft that would make descending lower improve visibility? At its operational height there is no cloud cover, if it was to descend below cloud cover to improve visibility then it would be descending below about 10,000 ft, in which case it had better watch out for a wide range of SAMs.
Get over yourself. If a target is obscured by clouds and you want the photo bad enough, you have to get under the clouds. In no way was I trying to imply that there were mythical clouds at 70,000 feet :rolleyes: However, I wasn’t aware of what TEEJ posted, so I stand corrected regardless.
But seriously, clouds at 80,000 feet? Do you really think my intelligence has degraded that much?
If the U-2 had to descend to be hit by a SAM over the USSR there would be no reason not to keep sending them.
The ironic part is that this was going to be the last U-2 overflight all along, and the CIA had to fight to get Presidential approval for it.
By: CLEAR WAR - 19th March 2006 at 22:56
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
By: TEEJ - 19th March 2006 at 22:50
The minute he attributes the shootdown of FGP’s U-2 to some EM weapon, he looses all credibility. “At the time, no Soviet surface to-air missile could reach the high-flying U-2” No, really? Too bad Powers had to descend to gain a visual of the target area due ot cloud cover, putting him a lot closer to the range of the S-75 SAMs in the area. A barrage of S-75s detonated near the U-2 causing massive structural failure, that’s what brought it down. Not some BS wonderweapon.
Sean,
It has been a common myth since the shootdown. Francis Gary Powers CIA debrief was declassified in 1998. FGP confirmed that he was at his assigned height of 70,000ft.
By: CLEAR WAR - 19th March 2006 at 22:49
You mean the one that caused the Tunguska blast? The aliens came to take it back in ’47 but their ship crashed. :rolleyes:
tHE TRADITIONAL teaching is that a meteorite caused the blast, but thats not true because there would have been MASSIVE fireS, scince it was a forest that got hit, so the story that it was Tesla’s weapon, is more believable, than some Meteor. :rolleyes:
By: djnik - 19th March 2006 at 21:40
😮
What took them so long :confused:
By: sferrin - 19th March 2006 at 21:26
What about the Soviet agent stealing the prototype of a “Death Ray” fron the basement of the Hotel where Serbain scientist Nikola Tespla passed away in 1943? 😀
I am glad Tesla was determined to conduct research for peacefull purposes and to better mankind.If he decided to create weapons,it would have been really bad for all of us 😮
You mean the one that caused the Tunguska blast? The aliens came to take it back in ’47 but their ship crashed. :rolleyes:
By: djnik - 19th March 2006 at 19:43
What about the Soviet agent stealing the prototype of a “Death Ray” fron the basement of the Hotel where Serbain scientist Nikola Tespla passed away in 1943? 😀
I am glad Tesla was determined to conduct research for peacefull purposes and to better mankind.If he decided to create weapons,it would have been really bad for all of us 😮
By: danrh - 19th March 2006 at 11:31
Talk about fiction… what sort of cloud cover would be at 80,000 ft that would make descending lower improve visibility? At its operational height there is no cloud cover, if it was to descend below cloud cover to improve visibility then it would be descending below about 10,000 ft, in which case it had better watch out for a wide range of SAMs.
If the U-2 had to descend to be hit by a SAM over the USSR there would be no reason not to keep sending them.
Large sheets of high level cirrus cloud can be found in the altitudes between 20-40000 feet. Generally speaking there is little cloud )or anything else above this but there are some very rare stratospheic clouds occaisionally seen at higher latitudes at altitudes around 70000ft. Not saying this was the case but the suggestion that descending below cloud means 10000 feet is ludicrous.
Daniel
By: Arabella-Cox - 19th March 2006 at 07:13
Too bad Powers had to descend to gain a visual of the target area due ot cloud cover, putting him a lot closer to the range of the S-75 SAMs in the area.
Talk about fiction… what sort of cloud cover would be at 80,000 ft that would make descending lower improve visibility? At its operational height there is no cloud cover, if it was to descend below cloud cover to improve visibility then it would be descending below about 10,000 ft, in which case it had better watch out for a wide range of SAMs.
If the U-2 had to descend to be hit by a SAM over the USSR there would be no reason not to keep sending them.
By: sferrin - 17th March 2006 at 14:29
I’d put more stock in Cook’s “The Search for Zero Point”. At least he’s an established journalist with a reputation in the field. (Not that I don’t think Zero Point is a bit of a fantasy though.)
By: SOC - 17th March 2006 at 05:57
The minute he attributes the shootdown of FGP’s U-2 to some EM weapon, he looses all credibility. “At the time, no Soviet surface to-air missile could reach the high-flying U-2” No, really? Too bad Powers had to descend to gain a visual of the target area due ot cloud cover, putting him a lot closer to the range of the S-75 SAMs in the area. A barrage of S-75s detonated near the U-2 causing massive structural failure, that’s what brought it down. Not some BS wonderweapon.
By: Austin - 17th March 2006 at 04:50
This seems like the typical cold war propoganda , From Challenger Disaster to some Titan Rocket blowing up to some weather problem over US , Blame it on the new Esotric Scalar EM Weapon.
Good they didnt blame the Dinasours extinction million years ago to some Soviet Scalar EM Weapon which can travel back in time 😉
Sign In
March 17, 2006 at 4:26 am