The Paranormal, UFO's, and Mysteries of the Unknown

Loser Araysar

Chief Russia Correspondent / Stock Pals CEO
<Gold Donor>
75,304
148,139
Do you know why we don’t have super carriers that can launch 5 times as many planes as the ones we have now?

it’s not because we can’t make it. It’s because it’s inpracical and un needed.

araysar nailed it. The only reason the faggy soviets made bombs that big was to try to flex dick strength saying “well look how big this is”

Meanwhile using less resources we could make 10 times as many bombs that would do more damage that tsar bomba when spread out.

did you see Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Job done. No need to crater the entire fucking area.
Russia’s nuke program was basically a 48 year old dad with bleached tips. All of show

It was actually the other way around. The Soviets calculated that building more missiles but with lower yielding warheads would take more resources and more time than having fewer missiles with higher yielding warheads.

At one point the math worked out to something like this: for each kiloton increase in nuclear yield, it cost an additional dollar if calculated in US dollars. It was a laughably small price.
 
Last edited:
  • 1Picard
  • 1Like
Reactions: 1 users

Loser Araysar

Chief Russia Correspondent / Stock Pals CEO
<Gold Donor>
75,304
148,139
Of course they could, the point is that Russia diverted the resources for that despite their crumbling infrastructure in other areas, so China could have a hyper-advanced program for some new tech while their bridges are falling apart.

The rationale for building high yield warheads and fewer missiles was that it took LESS resources than building more missiles with smaller warheads.

This is nonsense anyways as any argument predicated on the claim that Russia was bankrupted into a collapse through an artificial arms race with US is patently false.
 
  • 1Dislike
  • 1Like
Reactions: 1 users

BrotherWu

MAGA
<Silver Donator>
3,048
5,835


We were provided a series of unclassified slides showing that the program took this seriously enough to include it in numerous briefings. One slide says one of the program’s tasks was to “arrange for access to data/reports/materials from crash retrievals of A.A.V.’s,” or advanced aerospace vehicles.

Our sources told us that “A.A.V.” does not refer to vehicles made in any country — not Russian or Chinese — but is used to mean technology in the realm of the truly unexplained. They also assure us that their briefings are based on facts, not belief.
 
  • 2Like
  • 1Dislike
Reactions: 2 users

Chukzombi

Millie's Staff Member
71,677
212,895
for people who never click my links, here is the same debunking of those UFO videos. stop rehashing bullshit.
 
  • 3Like
Reactions: 2 users

Moogalak

<Gold Donor>
894
1,453
for people who never click my links, here is the same debunking of those UFO videos. stop rehashing bullshit.

So we are to assume a rando youtuber has a better understanding of the optics the US military is using than the US military?
 
  • 4Like
  • 1Picard
Reactions: 4 users

Chukzombi

Millie's Staff Member
71,677
212,895
So we are to assume a rando youtuber has a better understanding of the optics the US military is using than the US military?
the US military never confirmed anything about those. they were "leaked". watch the videos. im done explaining things for people.
 
  • 1Solidarity
Reactions: 1 user

Moogalak

<Gold Donor>
894
1,453
the US military never confirmed anything about those. they were "leaked". watch the videos. im done explaining things for people.

So the pilots trained to use the optics, who are commenting about the objects in these "leaked" videos are just wrong and should defer to youtube. Got it.
 
  • 2Like
  • 1Dislike
Reactions: 2 users

Chukzombi

Millie's Staff Member
71,677
212,895
So the pilots trained to use the optics, who are commenting about the objects in these "leaked" videos are just wrong and should defer to youtube. Got it.
no, watch the videos. those are not complete clips, they were selectively edited. stop guessing.
 

Moogalak

<Gold Donor>
894
1,453
That brit has 0 training or access to the optics he is so expertly debunking. Talk about guesswork.
 
  • 2Like
  • 1Dislike
Reactions: 2 users

MusicForFish

Ultra Maga Instinct
<Prior Amod>
31,847
124,968
the US military never confirmed anything about those. they were "leaked". watch the videos. im done explaining things for people.
What are you talking about? They were released by the Pentagon. Yes, they were smuggled out initially, therefore not an "official" release when they first hit the papers. Yet the Pentagon confirmed them shortly afterwards. I think you're acting like a total idiot over these videos. I just don't seem why you're so bent out of shape about it.
 
  • 1Picard
  • 1Like
Reactions: 1 users

MusicForFish

Ultra Maga Instinct
<Prior Amod>
31,847
124,968
no, watch the videos. those are not complete clips, they were selectively edited. stop guessing.
You do know that the clips have been trimmed for "reasons of national security" which typically means sensitive tools, data, techniques and military platforms can't be shown due to the impact that would have in our defense capabilities.


The U.S. Navy acknowledged the existence of the information, which concerns a 2004 encounter between the USS Nimitz and strange unknown aerial objects, in response to a public records request from Vice.

Last year, the Navy for the first time acknowledged that three UFO videos -- one from the 2004 USS Nimitz incident and two from 2015 -- were real videos of unidentified flying objects.

Responding to Vice's Freedom of Information Act request, the Navy said it had "discovered certain briefing slides that are classified TOP SECRET. A review of these materials indicates that are currently and appropriate Marked and Classified TOP SECRET under Executive Order 13526 and the Originial Classification Authority has determined that release of these materials would cause exceptionally grave damage to the National Security of the United States."

“We have also determined that ONI possesses a video classified SECRET that ONI is not the Original Classification Authority for,” the letter continued.

Vice reports that a Pentagon spokesperson said the Navy has the video of the mysterious incident in its possesion but has no plans to release it.




Please tell me you understand the term national security.
 
  • 1Dislike
  • 1Like
Reactions: 1 users

Chukzombi

Millie's Staff Member
71,677
212,895
You do know that the clips have been trimmed for "reasons of national security" which typically means sensitive tools, data, techniques and military platforms can't be shown due to the impact that would have in our defense capabilities.


The U.S. Navy acknowledged the existence of the information, which concerns a 2004 encounter between the USS Nimitz and strange unknown aerial objects, in response to a public records request from Vice.

Last year, the Navy for the first time acknowledged that three UFO videos -- one from the 2004 USS Nimitz incident and two from 2015 -- were real videos of unidentified flying objects.

Responding to Vice's Freedom of Information Act request, the Navy said it had "discovered certain briefing slides that are classified TOP SECRET. A review of these materials indicates that are currently and appropriate Marked and Classified TOP SECRET under Executive Order 13526 and the Originial Classification Authority has determined that release of these materials would cause exceptionally grave damage to the National Security of the United States."

“We have also determined that ONI possesses a video classified SECRET that ONI is not the Original Classification Authority for,” the letter continued.

Vice reports that a Pentagon spokesperson said the Navy has the video of the mysterious incident in its possesion but has no plans to release it.




Please tell me you understand the term national security.
listen to yourself, "smuggled out" "trimmed for national security", how do you not see your own contradictions?
 
  • 1Solidarity
Reactions: 1 user

Chukzombi

Millie's Staff Member
71,677
212,895
You sound like a conspiracy theorist.
actually i am trying to be rational. you cant smuggle approved clips out. either you smuggle out the unedited raw footage or its a selectively edited release. those clips were intentionally cut right before those objects were identified as the mundane earth oriented objects they are. if i am wrong then please produce the pentagon officials confirming those are otherworldy. i'll wait.
 
  • 1Solidarity
Reactions: 1 user

Moogalak

<Gold Donor>
894
1,453

They are simply unidentified. For some reason you've gone all Mudcrush and put the blinders on. The Navy cannot identify the objects. Not a bird, not a plane, not superman, not a UFO. Unidentified Aerial Phenomena. That's it.

Cut the videos before they were identified? Come on. Are you implying the Navy is purposely obfuscating the phenomena to mislead everyone? To what end?
 
  • 3Like
  • 1Worf
  • 1Salty
Reactions: 4 users

MusicForFish

Ultra Maga Instinct
<Prior Amod>
31,847
124,968
actually i am trying to be rational. you cant smuggle approved clips out. either you smuggle out the unedited raw footage or its a selectively edited release. those clips were intentionally cut right before those objects were identified as the mundane earth oriented objects they are. if i am wrong then please produce the pentagon officials confirming those are otherworldy. i'll wait.
Who said anything about the Pentagon claiming they were aliens? You really have a serious hard-on for aliens. You can't shut up about them.
How do You know? Show me the proof that You have. Not some video some guy made. I'll wait.
 
  • 1Picard
  • 1Like
Reactions: 1 users

Chukzombi

Millie's Staff Member
71,677
212,895
Who said anything about the Pentagon claiming they were aliens? You really have a serious hard-on for aliens. You can't shut up about them.
How do You know? Show me the proof that You have. Not some video some guy made. I'll wait.
oh, you watched those videos? what did you find wrong about them?