BennyK
DFO Master
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2008
- Messages
- 14,364
- Reaction score
- 1,311
Last edited:
hahahahaha
nope. Not at all what I’m saying. Why would you assume those statements?
You are looking at all of this in a very simplistic ... almost childlike view (not to be taken as an insult).
I'm not really going to enter into this level of discussion.
I was just pointing out that you were incorrect in your assessment of how Intelligence functions within that paradigm.
Beyond that ...
Compartmentalization (information security) - Wikipedia
en.m.wikipedia.org
The pictures of the “stuff” remaining on the surface have been released and continue to be released as more and more are obtained. Hubble took some neat ones that you could find online. There is quite a collection of these out there for one who chooses to search.
Here’s some neat ones of the sites after the fact.
View attachment 403834
Sorry....not impressed...lol.The pictures of the “stuff” remaining on the surface have been released and continue to be released as more and more are obtained. Hubble took some neat ones that you could find online. There is quite a collection of these out there for one who chooses to search.
Here’s some neat ones of the sites after the fact.
View attachment 403834
What piece of information specifically did I state that was incorrect? Specifically please.Yes. Wikipedia - the primary source for most Intelligence Officers.
Look, I respect your voice in this.
All I did was point out a piece of incorrect information you had stated. Nothing more.
I’m not about to sit here and try and educate you on any of this, much less how the freekin Military Intelligence Departments function.
Just take what I said with a grain of salt if you doubt me.
It is your life and your choice to believe what you want.
And before you continue flipping off the rails and attributing items I did not state to me ... I am well aware of the value of compartmentalization within the Intelligence operations.
I leave you with a single question ...
Why does it mean so much to you to try and convince others they are wrong about this?
Precisely, that was about as good a retreat as you could have pulled off considering your situation. Transparent for sure but you had very few options.I’m done. I was clear. I’m not your teacher.
Go. Live your life.
AREA 51 of Course!So if we didn’t go? Where did the money go?
Sorry....not impressed...lol.
They should be in HD and the numbers should be readable....like a license plate from a satilite!
Those pictures look like they came out of a 1970s textbook.
Currently using Vic Virth 7a. Working on my low volume game.Hey, everybody, what kinda sticks you use???
The bottom line is that you asked and MrJnic answered. But then you simply chose not to accept the exact proof you asked for. Nothing else can be said unless you want to ask about something else.Sorry....not impressed...lol.
They should be in HD and the numbers should be readable....like a license plate from a satilite!
Those pictures look like they came out of a 1970s textbook.
Hmmm....are we being graded on this exercise? Lol...The bottom line is that you asked and MrJnic answered. But then you simply chose not to accept the exact proof you asked for. Nothing else can be said unless you want to ask about something else.
I just think for where we are technology-wise there should be some awesome detailed shots of those sites by now.
If we could put a man up there 50 years ago...surely we can take a picture of their footprnts and the vehicle they used in 2019, no?
Ok, fair enough. So they are not real pictures in the traditional sense, more like artisitic renderings created by computation? Certainly won't argue the science. I appreciate the "non-condescending" response, MC.Ok. I understand the breakdown in comprehension.
You are not familiar with how pictures are taken in space.
My suggestion is for you to educate yourself on the variables augmented for those shots. It’s a lot of digital and thermal formulas applied through a variety of algorithms ... the imagery you see of far off stars and such is not a “picture” like from your camera. It’s the results of a ton of calculations to best represent what is out there.
These pictures here of the moon were taken with the traditional lens method via the telescope and then run through cleanup ... basically. There’s more to it, but for the sake of clarity, this explanation will suffice.
You are conflating spy satellite imagery and space imagery and telescope imagery. There are marked differences in those.