Comments by "Old Guy Gaming Network" (@CRAZYHORSE19682003) on "Curious Droid" channel.

  1. The worst thing about the internet is it takes people with an exceptionally low IQ like you and makes them feel smart. Sadly the internet is literally creating an entire new generation of ignorant fools.
    2
  2. The problem with the Arrow is that it was designed in a era where aviation technology was advancing so rapidly the Arrow became obsolete before it ever entered production. The American F-106 was a superior aircraft and it flew almost 2 YEARS before the Arrow. Because of the controversy of how the Arrow program was canceled the plane has had a huge amount of mythology built up around it. It was not a super plane, it was not the worlds best, not even close. It was canceled because it was obsolete.
    2
  3. Even the United States realized interceptors were obsolete. The F-106 program was cut from the planned 1000 aircraft down to 350 aircraft. They also did't spend a lot of money upgrading the F-106 to give it capabilities beyond the interceptor mission.
    2
  4. WRONG.....the Arrow was canceled because it was OBSOLETE not because of any US involvement. Why would the US need to have the Arrow canceled when they had a better interceptor in the F-106 that flew almost TWO YEARS before the Arrow?
    2
  5. LOL The Van Allen belts can and were passed easily but people like you read something off a conspiracy web site and assume it is true without researching it yourself. The Van Allen Belts are made up of a TYPE of radiation called charged particle radiation. A TYPE of radiation that is not nearly as deadly to people as high EM band radiation like X-Rays and Gamma rays. To receive a fatal dose of radiation you would need to spend about three months in the Van Allen Belts. The Apollo astronauts spent a TOTAL of 3 hours in the Van Allen Belts during their trips to the moon. The astronauts carried dosimeters on them to measure radiation exposure and they received around 5 REMS of exposure which is less than the average worker at a Nuclear power plant receives in a year. As another way of demonstrating how stupid the conspiracy theorists are, they make claims that the Apollo space craft would have needed lead shielding to keep the astronauts alive. WRONG in a charged particle environment, when those particles collide with lead they give off X-rays. Having a lead shield on the Apollo space craft would have killed the astronauts as they traveled through the Van Allen Belts.
    2
  6. F-35's seal club F-15's all day in training.
    2
  7.  @johnhopkins6260  I was in the Navy and the Sea Sparrow had a terrible reputation and was mockingly called the sea chicken. About half the time the guidance fins would rip off at launch and the missile would tumble into the sea. The thing I hate about the internet is context is hard to deliver in a post. I NEVER said the weapons were great, they had tons of issues. What I was trying to say is that as pilot training got better throughout the war these weapons performed better as pilots learned when to fire them and when not to.
    2
  8. I have a theory on that. I believe that the vast majority of people are in most part heard animals. They are not driven to discover things for themselves but are happy with being told how things are. So and so said it so that's how it is. For conspiracy theorists they read conspiracy nonsense off the internet and for them it is true. For those of us who are not heard animals, who can think for ourselves. We will actually take the time to look at a conspiracy theorists claim and than go do the research to find out if it is true or not.
    1
  9. Ok, are you aware that your eyes are in effect cameras? They have a field of view and a focal length. This determines how things look to you. With a camera I can be standing in the exact same position and photograph you from a range of 50 feet. Using the EXACT same camera but with two different lenses say a 18mm and a 50mm. You will appear to be two different sizes. The focal lengths here are arbitrary examples, could be a somewhat larger or small value, the principle holds.
    1
  10. Actually you use a good example for me to try and explain how the focal length of a lens can make objects look larger or smaller. Let's say that I am across the street and I photograph you with a lens that gets a close in shot of you. The 7-11 in the background will fill the entire frame, in fact most of the 7-11 building can not be seen because I am zoomed in too far. Next I switch to a wide angle lens, not only can I see the entire 7-11 building I can also see the buildings to the left and right of the 7-11 building. In the first picture both you and the 7-11 building look big, you fill up the entire frame. In the second picture you both look much smaller even though I photographed you both from the same distance. Use our own atmospheres ability to magnify the moon. Do you ever notice how large the moon looks when it first rises. Come back 6 hours later when it almost directly above you and it looks less than half as large. Did the moon somehow come closer when it was rising? The answer is no. With a combination of focal length and no atmospheric distortion, the earth is exactly the size it should be in the Apollo pictures. If you are still confused I suggest you visit your local astronomy club when they are holding a public star party. Quite a few of them will be doing astro photography. They can do a good job explaining how focal length effects the size of objects in photos.
    1
  11. Hey Peter I hope you are having a good weekend. I would like to apologize for insulting you in earlier posts. It was uncalled for and unjustified. So I apologize. Hopefully you can see your way to accepting it. Let us talk about the solar system. Have you looked closely at the moon? It is covered in craters. The moon is has been readily bombarded by asteroids and other space debris for billions of years. If you look at the surface of the earth, there are craters EVERYWHERE. The Earth has been hit by many asteroids over it's life. We are constantly being bombarded by stuff from space. Shooting stars are meteorites burning up in the atmosphere. Next we will talk about Jupiter it is called the solar systems vacuum cleaner. It's immense gravity well has been sucking up space debris and in a way shielding earth. Stars do collide, however when you are talking about almost infinite space for objects to move around in, collisions are rare. However our galaxy and the Andromeda galaxy are on a collision course. Way in the future the two galaxies will collide, merge and become one. A few stars are bound to collide than. Let us talk about comets, asteroids, and other bodies that move through space. What is Newton's third law? For every action there is a equal and opposite reaction. What you failed to account for Peter is gravitational pull on objects from other celestial bodies. That till change the flight path of objects moving in space. That is why you have asteroids, comets, and other bodies that move through space in all different directions. HEHEHEHEHE You only thought you had me Sir.
    1
  12. The problems they are dealing with TODAY is that charged particle radiation is VERY damaging to modern computers and electronics with silicon chips. In the Apollo program they had analog computers. http://video.genyoutube.net/IpXEpJAb8ZY Go to the three minute mark.
    1
  13. To believe that the moon landings were fake you have to be functionally illiterate. When all you can do is parrot INCORRECT information you have seen from conspiracy theorists videos on youtube. You can not be bothered to actually research the claims of these morons yourself to verify if what they are saying is true. When someone who is actually educated in the scientific disciplines required to explain to you why your position is incorrect all you can do is claim they are paid by the government.
    1
  14. If they took new batteries than yes they would still work.
    1
  15. However if you have any questions about 9/11, things you saw that do not appear to make sense. I will try to answer them and I promise to leave my insults at the door. In the 15 years since 9/11 I have learned a lot about metallurgy, physics, engineering, building fires, etc, etc. I think I can show you with science how most 9/11 conspiracies get it wrong.
    1
  16. lol Peter if I win the lottery I am buying you a seat on Richard Branson's space tourism spaceship. We are going to go together......but I swear if you say it is a simulator and the windows are computer screens showing us CGI. I will freak out lol.
    1
  17. Just a few amendments to your statement. In Vietnam it was the Gulf Of Tonkin incident. A staged attack on a US Destroyer by North Vietnamese torpedo boats. It was faked to drum up support for the war. In Iraq they did find plenty of Chemical weapons, I know that is splitting hairs on the whole WMD thing. However Saddam did in fact have chemical weapons. Quite a few of our soldiers got sick when some genius decided they should be burnt in place. Those chemical weapons were forbidden by the UN resolution regarding Iraq and it's weapons. I still think it is bullshit, Iraq posed no threat to anyone. The decision to invade was a personal one by GWB because Saddam plotted to kill his father. Also Cheney was on the board of Halliburton. I will give you three guesses as to which company was granted BILLIONS of dollars in NO BID CONTRACTS to provide services for Coalition forces in Iraq. I bet you won't need more than one.
    1
  18. @BryabPopRobson - There is no reasoning with conspiracy retards. They do not possess the mental ability to understand the science and physics involved in the Apollo program. No amount of evidence will EVER convince those retards otherwise.
    1
  19. Judging by you're grammar and vernacular I think it is safe to say it only does not make sense too you and people of you're same intelligence. To people with a IQ above 30 the moon landings happened.
    1
  20. Hey Peter, long time no see. I think we battled on some other conspiracy video hehehehehe. Actually Peter I do not believe anything anyone says without actually checking out their claims myself.
    1
  21. I am glad you are doing well. Keep questioning everything....it is the only way we learn.
    1
  22. So I already explained how you were wrong about he Van Allen Belts and the Rocket not digging a crater on the moon. What other things about the moon landings do you have doubts on?
    1
  23.  @kernelnumbr4810  Thank you for the civil response. MAy I ask you what do you think defies the laws of physics and anything known to man?
    1
  24.  @kernelnumbr4810  I appreciate your reply...if you want to talk 9/11 conspiracy I would be happy to show you where you are incorrect. There is not a single piece of evidence that supports the controlled demolition theory. Here is an article by one of the leading building demolition companies in the world Protec. They were contracted to perform the cleanup of ground zero. These people were actually on site, they walked the grounds and handled the wreckage. They did not find ANYTHING unusual and found no evidence of controlled demolition. http://www.implosionworld.com/Article-WTC%20STUDY%208-06%20w%20clarif%20as%20of%209-8-06%20.pdf I don't believe anything anyone says without studying it. Especially when it comes to conspiracy theories. What got me into 9/11 conspiracy theories is I was an eyewitness to the Pentagon attack. I saw the plane hit the building. When I started hearing the conspiracy theories saying no plane hit the Pentagon.....I knew they were full of crap, I was there and I know what I saw.
    1
  25. President Nixon made that call. The Shuttle program was supposed to be part of a space station program but the space station part got canceled.
    1
  26. ROFLMAO, what a low IQ person you are. Nuclear is not filthy, it is much better for the environment than Coal or oil. The latest generation of Nuclear reactors like pebble bed reactors CAN NOT SCRAM. They are the safest form of power in the world. There are even new reactor designs that would use Nuclear waste as fuel, allowing us to clean up our Nuclear waste dumps. However, because of hysterical morons like you we can't even have a discussion about building new nuclear plants that are 10x safer than the reactors in service today and generate far less nuclear waste because ignorant fools like you think it is filthy or dangerous.
    1
  27. Shhhhh the first rule of TR3B Flight Club.....is you don't talk about TR3B flight club.
    1
  28. Except it's sensors and avionics are obsolete.
    1
  29. It is sad that you have to explain basic science and physics to flattards as if they were 4 year olds.
    1
  30. Are you familiar with Red Flag exercises? They are as realistic an exercise can get to simulate war. The F-35 decimates F-15, 16's and 18's in these exercises. Red Air pilots liken it to being in a boxing match with someone with your eyes closed.
    1
  31.  @bubba842  True, I don't know why Canada settled for the F-101B when they should have going with the F-106 which was much better than the Arrow or the Voodoo.
    1
  32. The F-111 was also faster at ANY altitude than the TSR-2.
    1
  33. Salt Water is an excellent shield for radiation. A foot of sea water is the equivalent of an inch of lead. You could have a wide open reactor in the ocean and the radiation doesn't go more then 10 feet away.
    1
  34. lol You are wrong.
    1
  35. Yep, it happens all the time. Look at Battleships, today it would be impossible to make one. We are not sure how class A armor plate was made. We can't make the massive barrels now. A recent technology that has been lost.
    1
  36. I firmly believe 99% of the people who claim the moon landings were faked are just trolling.
    1
  37.  @curiouscat8457  I think it is the same with flat earth. People profess to flat earth on the internet just to see the reactions people leave in the comments section.
    1
  38. lol no it does not need 3 days maintenance. https://www.airforcemag.com/f-35-mission-capable-rates-up-for-all-variants-lord-tells-hasc/
    1
  39. World beater....ROFLMAO. Sorry the A-5 was already in SERVICE before the TSR-2 even flew. The F-111 was a far better aircraft than the TSR-2.
    1
  40. S-300 and S-400 will be blown to bits before it ever detects an F-35.
    1
  41. We were doing this 50 YEARS ago. Imagine what they have now that has been developed in total secrecy.
    1
  42. I don't know about "World Beater" it was a similar aircraft to the American A-5 with about the same performance.
    1
  43. LOL UAC is a fictional company in the video game series Doom. You see their logo all over the place.
    1
  44. Yea but can they run Crysis?
    1
  45. That is pure speculation. To this day they do not know what caused the Thresher to sink, there are only theories.
    1
  46. The British carriers are cute little toys.
    1
  47. Not even close, the FW-190 was more akin to the P-40. The P-51 would fly circles around it, seal clubbing it at will.
    1
  48. I am an amateur astronomer, I belong to the Howard Country Astronomy league, check us out on the web. I can tell you that you are incorrect.
    1
  49. The Arrows weapon system and armament were obsolete. The AIM-4 Falcon was a short range rear aspect missile, it had to be within 6 miles to launch. Sure they could have updated the avionics......which would cost money. They could update the weapons it fired.....which would have cost money. The weapons bay was too small to carry more than 3 AMRAAM's or sidewinders so the aircraft would have to be modified for external carriage of weapons.......which would cost money. Having weapons on external stores would rob performance from the Arrow through parasitic drag. Lastly the Arrow was a single mission aircraft, it could not do ANYTHING else. The CF-18 is a multirole aircraft that can do just about anything.
    1
  50.  @sbkarajan  I am only going to address two of your claims to show how silly they are. The Van Allen Belts are made up of a TYPE of radiation called charged particle radiation. A TYPE of radiation that is not nearly as deadly to people as high EM band radiation like X-Rays and Gamma rays. To receive a fatal dose of radiation you would need to spend about three months in the Van Allen Belts. The Apollo astronauts spent a TOTAL of 3 hours in the Van Allen Belts during their trips to the moon. The astronauts carried dosimeters on them to measure radiation exposure and they received around 5 REMS of exposure which is less than the average worker at a Nuclear power plant receives in a year. Now as silly as this claim was, the others are equally silly. Take the rocket nozzle claim. The MAX thrust was 9,900 pounds and it was LIMITED to 60% for controlled operations. The lander had a nozzle exit diameter was 63 inches. The exhaust cone would have filled the entire cone in the vacuum of space. So 60% of 9900 pounds is 5940 pounds of thrust. Distributed over 3,217 square inches even at maximum power would have only been 1.8 pounds per square inch. You common every day leaf blower with its exhaust compressed by the atmosphere creates significantly more pressure than that.
    1