Trigger Posted September 14, 2007 Share Posted September 14, 2007 Now that kids, is how ya cook up a yarn about hidden evil intentions. You forgot to mention the Illuminati. Link to post Share on other sites
Just call me Ray Posted September 14, 2007 Share Posted September 14, 2007 This of course was all part of an elaborate plan to grossly inflate the capabilities and image of the Russian military on the world circuit to aid in their eventual plans to overtake Antarctica from all those blasted penguins and create a new Soviet Empire that will be ruled by Lenin himself (from the comfort of his mausoleum at Red Square in Moscow...... of course). Now that kids, is how ya cook up a yarn about hidden evil intentions. I smell another conspiracy here.... Clearly, you knew of this plan for quite some while now. However, while you were drafting this plan (or perhaps before you even thought of it - mind extraction techniques, anyone?) Matt Groening clearly saw how eeevillllly clever it was and decided that HE must be the first to reveal this diabolical Soviet plan to the world! However, as to not catch the ire of the resurgent Soviet Union (which, in fact, had always stuck around, it was just a clever ploy to the West), he cleverly disguised this nugget of information in one of his Simpsons episodes, so that the West can be properly warned without getting Zombie Lenin suspicious! Brilliant, I know :D Link to post Share on other sites
Raymond Posted September 14, 2007 Share Posted September 14, 2007 some food for thought: id guess its coming off also contains the camera for the footage? a tu-160s bay is very long in comparison to the device, if it is sliding, i cant see why it coudent be done out of a tu-160s bay. you have the device, and its respective pallet designed for launching it off, no problem :D workign from the footage alone, u cant say it was 100% dropped from a tu-160, but neither can you rule it out 100% Link to post Share on other sites
ChernayaAkula Posted September 14, 2007 Share Posted September 14, 2007 We are talking about -this- propaganda footage being suspect. We aren't talking about national security concerns or anything else regarding the functionality of the weapon. So, in the context of examining this footage, yes, it is strange. Ahh, yes, that's just what I meant. The footage was obviously some kind of propaganda stunt (although, if you go by that, all publicized tests of new weapons are propaganda stunts). Show what you've got but not showing exactly how it works. What I meant with national security concerns is that the Russian Ministry of Defence has nothing to do with the publicized footage of the test. They would probably like to keep the launch sequence and associated hardware as secret as possible. And that's why the news networks had to resort to stock footage. Information is a two-sided sword. I, for one, didn't get why the media had to spill the beans regarding the fac that German law enforcement swapped the chemicals for less volatile stuff months before last weeks terrorist bust in Germany. Why do I need to know that? That knowledge doesn't make me any safer. On the contrary, future terrorists are now aware and will check their kit more often. Besides, regarding the stock footage, I'd say the media usually don't give a flying monkeys' about whether the pics of military hardware are in accordance to what they're talking about or not. You forgot to mention the Illuminati. Ah, no. Those dudes are responsible for nigh on everything nowadays. With all those things they're responsible for they're hardly a secret society anymore. I think they should appoint a PR officer. The Illuminati are to conspiracy theorists what ACME is to Wiley E. Coyote. Link to post Share on other sites
Trigger Posted September 14, 2007 Share Posted September 14, 2007 workign from the footage alone, u cant say it was 100% dropped from a tu-160, but neither can you rule it out 100% Uh...yeah, you can. Others have pointed it out already. If it was dropped from that Tu-160, why did they cut away from the footage shot from the chase plane and not show the bomb actually deploying from the Blackjack? No, they quickcut to a shot of the device being pulled out of the back of a different type of aircraft altogether. id guess its coming off also contains the camera for the footage? Two words: zoom lens. a tu-160s bay is very long in comparison to the device, if it is sliding, i cant see why it coudent be done out of a tu-160s bay. you have the device, and its respective pallet designed for launching it off, no problem The bomb bay may be longer than the device, but that's still no reason for the device to have to be pulled out from behind it by a drogue chute once the bomb bay doors are opened and the device is released. The laws of physics and gravity will take care of the rest once those last two items are accomplished. Sir Isaac Newton will back me up on that one. You place a drogue on a something that size to pull it out of the back of an aircraft. It doesn't matter if it's at high altitude or low altitude. It worked 40 years ago... 20 years ago... And it even works with Russian-designed aircraft too! I, for one, didn't get why the media had to spill the beans regarding the fac that German law enforcement swapped the chemicals for less volatile stuff months before last weeks terrorist bust in Germany. Glad I'm not the only one who was wondering that The Illuminati are to conspiracy theorists what ACME is to Wiley E. Coyote. You're right. My idea was WAY to contrived. I can do better than that. Link to post Share on other sites
Brady Posted September 14, 2007 Share Posted September 14, 2007 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Y-czxmb9EU See... told ya so Link to post Share on other sites
hazmatt Posted September 14, 2007 Share Posted September 14, 2007 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Y-czxmb9EU See... told ya so Got a little chuckle out of that one . . . Matt Link to post Share on other sites
Johnopfor Posted September 14, 2007 Share Posted September 14, 2007 I'm still waiting for a Tweet reference.......OOpppsss!!! Link to post Share on other sites
Chappie Posted September 14, 2007 Share Posted September 14, 2007 ^ pure conjecture based on 2 seconds of footage, vivid imagination and desperate desire to find an evil ploy. Very strange indeed. Without knowing the exact position of the bomb and the camera inside the bomb bay and the position of the aircraft it impossible to distinguish between "sliding" and "falling". Tu-160 carries 22500-40000 kg, the bomb in question is no more than 5-7 by 2, maybe 3 meters and 8-9 tons. Why bother with a cargo plane? I'm very sorry they didnt provide the footage of the bomb being designed, assembled, loaded and dropped in 1080i High Definition with Dolby surround sound. Touchy aren't we? Chappie Link to post Share on other sites
ChernayaAkula Posted September 14, 2007 Share Posted September 14, 2007 Touchy aren't we?Chappie Well, how could he not be? We only had half a dozen threads about the increase in Bear operations, with half of those accusing the Russians of trying to live up the Cold War again. Now we've got several threads about that Father Of All Bombs, which, although not on this board, has been taken by western media as yet another example of the Russians engaging in an arms race. So I think it's perfectly okay for him to be a wee bit touchy. Link to post Share on other sites
Trigger Posted September 14, 2007 Share Posted September 14, 2007 (edited) Moritz, I see your point, but I will have to respectfully disagree with you on the following basis... The most serious accusation I've seen in this thread so far is that someone in Russia is exaggerating by suggesting the weapon can be deployed from a platform that it may in fact not be able to. And he's getting all bent out of shape over it, accusing people of being "desperate desire to find an evil ploy." No one is suggesting an evil plot here, we're saying that this isn't so much news, it's advertising. And in advertising, it's common to exaggerate one's product or service (ie - "So simple, even a caveman can use it.") It's okay for him to go on a holy crusade regarding the recent B-52 incident (doesn't matter if what he said was right or wrong - accusations of conspiracies and cover-ups), but we're not to even question some stock footage from the six o'clock news? Sorry, but one can't have it both ways. That's why some of us here think he's being overly sensitive about this. Edited September 14, 2007 by Trigger Link to post Share on other sites
ChernayaAkula Posted September 14, 2007 Share Posted September 14, 2007 Okay, I see. You got a point there. Gotta look up that B-52 thread. For whatever reason I didn't read that one. Link to post Share on other sites
Raymond Posted September 14, 2007 Share Posted September 14, 2007 ..and here i was thinking all this passionate discussion was due to interest in video continuity, silly me :) Link to post Share on other sites
Trigger Posted September 14, 2007 Share Posted September 14, 2007 (edited) Gotta look up that B-52 thread. For whatever reason I didn't read that one. You didn't miss much. i was thinking all this passionate discussion was due to interest in video continuity It is actually. I didn't want to say anything earlier because I knew this would be controversial: the FOAB does NOT exist. The explosion? That was a Tweet's engine backfiring. My uncle was there when it happened and he was one of the few survivors. Putin's just using the stock footage to boost sales of Russian military hardware. I've got video proof of it right here. Edited September 14, 2007 by Trigger Link to post Share on other sites
Chappie Posted September 14, 2007 Share Posted September 14, 2007 It's okay for him to go on a holy crusade regarding the recent B-52 incident (doesn't matter if what he said was right or wrong - accusations of conspiracies and cover-ups), but we're not to even question some stock footage from the six o'clock news? Sorry, but one can't have it both ways. That's why some of us here think he's being overly sensitive about this. OOhhhh, good point. I had not thought of that. Chappie Link to post Share on other sites
GreyGhost Posted September 14, 2007 Share Posted September 14, 2007 Jan, just watch the footage ... Gregg Link to post Share on other sites
Johnopfor Posted September 14, 2007 Share Posted September 14, 2007 (edited) Man, all of this arguing over the way in which I dispose of my garbage............................just......s.a.d. Kinda like the panic over a B-52 carring nuclear bombs from one US Military base that houses them to another US Military base that houses them (as opposed to landing at let's say Atlanta's Hartsfield International Airport?). I guess that we all forgot that for over 40 years, up until recently, B-52's armed with nuclear bombs were flying over the US on a daily basis. One more thing, I seem to remember that Kruzchev claimed in a speech to the Soviet Politic back in the 60's that they were producing nuclear bombs like "sausages in a sausage factory" when in fact, they only had a couple of dozen bombs. Of course after that, arms production on both sides went into full swing. My point: Sometimes, the picture is much smaller than they want you to believe. Now I will sit here and watch more of the electronic mudslinging................. Edited September 14, 2007 by Johnopfor Link to post Share on other sites
janman Posted September 14, 2007 Share Posted September 14, 2007 Jan, just watch the footage ... Gregg Gregg, I've watched it and I know what you mean. I was mostly referring to the other thread (B-52). But this one too, including certain personal insult-like comments. Gotta do some sanding on the intakes of my Badger... Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts