>> ^deputydog:
seeing an 'uncanny' robot reminds me of looking at dubya on tv.
'ok, he looks human, although his body movements are a bit awkward and yeah, the eyes are kind of dead but i suppose that could be the light. hey karina, c'mere a minute. take a look at this. ya think he's human? there's obviously a lot of power behind this thing for it to be at a press conference but i dunno, there's a massive delay before the words come out'.


They fixed that in later revisions:

http://www.videosift.com/video/Pentagons-Unmanned-Spokesdrone-Does-First-Press-Conference

Secret service unmanned drone?

>> ^diction:
dupe
http://www.videosift.com/video/Unexpected-performance


true. slipped by the communities radar like an unmanned drone...

*discard

Actually, doesn't this just prove that there's a reflector on the moon? It could have been placed there by unmanned probe.

[I don't doubt that we went there, just sayin']

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Wetback

President Eisenhower saw the shitstorm coming...Let the borders remain relatively unmanned, fast forward 50 years and the exponential increase in illegals dilutes the demographics, and criminals as well as hard-working folks who want stuff (that has been instilled in us for a long time, preoccupation with money, leisure, entertainment, hell after working all week you need an out, Romans had their coliseum to keep them preoccupied, modern man has been engineered around several money-sucking diversions as well)

Once the problem has been created through neglect and encouragement in this case, the solution is also provided by the puppet leaders-and diversions such as racism, are icing on the cake-Keep the monkeys distracted with bullshit, and watch the place turn into something they have to "control"

Forest for the trees, baby...Y'all screaming racist, need to warn the messicans.....Oh, guy in the vid is a moron, has very limited survival instincts....

Thank you mythbusters. When I was an undergraduate I worked on a project that tested the gravitational constant, G, by measuring the amount of time it took to reflect a laser off of a lunar laser array (buncha corner cubes ... like a mirror for lasers) that astronauts placed there. Guess what, the laser light came back so it bounced off of something up there. Either the conspiracy is so elaborate that we had unmanned missions place the arrays there and physics undergraduate students back in 2002 were still participating in the cover up or the reality is much simpler: people went to the moon.

>> ^rougy:
That may be, but that does not prove that we went to the moon.

Yes it does. http://www.videosift.com/video/Laser-Pointer-Mythbusters-Bust-Moon-Landing-Conspiracies

It is also possible to see other reasons outside of conspiracy why we haven't gone back lately. Some basic cost vs benefit figures come to mind. Manned moon missions cost billions of dollars and put lives at risk. We've sent a number of manned missions basically just to prove it could be done. Since the conspiracy only focuses on the first landing while ignoring everything up to Apollo 17 and unmanned missions following, does this vast conspiracy continue to fabricate moon landings and scientific research?

Now, like you said, we have the technology to perform tasks remotely. So why spend billions trying to send more people when you can launch something that doesn't have to worry about oxygen, food, sleep, or any other human needs? Also, in regards to wondering why no one else went there, what is the rush now? There is nothing there and the race is over. Russia and China are still considering possible manned missions in the future. In the meantime, unmanned missions work just fine. It is easy to construct conspiracy theories after an event has occured. Take a dash of fact, mix with conjecture, bake till ignorant, and you've got a conspiracy. Works best if served while calling everyone blind.

>> ^NetRunner:
I'm a bit surprised they didn't work in a crack about "stay the course" or "the surge is working", or something about it preventing the possibility of a tell-all book.


These features were planned, but were pushed back for inclusion in Spokesbot Mark II due to budget cuts and an urgency to get Mark I into the field.

Yeah, they didn't steal the plans... geeze

They are different, and the scientists wanted to build a smaller craft, but the powers that be wanted to ensure that the USSR looked to be as powerful as the US and so ended up with this near identical design.

Their test craft, the OK-GLI was actually better than the US one, because it could take off under its own power rather than being carried up by an aircraft.

It's fascinating, and quite sad that so much money was spent on the venture, only for it to have ONE... one UNMANNED flight into orbit before being canceled.

That's an obscene use of money right there. (Although I'd much rather have countries spending money on failed space programs than war... but that's just me)

This does bring back memories though, I remember getting up early (in Australia) to see the first Space Shuttle launch (Columbia) in... erm ahh, there we are, 1981... It was a beautiful thing

And I do remember the stuff about the Soviet program, and how very, very similar, and yet slightly different and odd it looked.

So, thanks for this

Flies fast, handles like a slug (by today's standards). Interesting design, but not very environmentally friendly The sucker leaks fuel out of its seams on the tarmac. Only once it takes off and starts to fly at speed for a while does the metal expand and start to seal the thing up. I saw one of these at the Air and Space museum. Beautiful plane for sure.

SR did its job.. reconnaissance. I wouldn't want to be in one in combat... its best defense is flying at very high altitude and high speed. Spy satellites and long range unmanned drones do the same job these days.

No, it was unmanned. It had been sitting out at sea for some time and the cost of keeping it there was a problem. As to why it couldn't be brought in to port, I believe it was in disrepair and a pollution hazard.

More here:
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/11/07/1099781247876.html
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/drug-freighter-meets-spectacular-end/2006/03/23/1143083893144.html

Look, regardless of your view on Reagan shooting, JFK assaination, etc. and whether or not real-world violence should be banned from sift...

Saddam hanging and dead Crocodile Hunters, are just sensational tabloidism. Wait a year and then decide if it is historical.

Anyways, what about all the unmanned air combat vehicle videos and military porn showing people being blown up and shot with missles, 50cal, etc. Those humans are still humans. Is someone going to scrub all those videos?

So I could care less about what is snuffy and what is historic.

Saddam is clearly on the same level as Paris Hilton sex video. Just stupid Fox-news level sensationalism.

Don't be too assumptive, farhad. Make no mistake- 7 men died here...

On Dec. 9, 1999, a CH-46 Sea Knight helicopter, with 18 people on board, crashed while attempting to land on the Navy tanker PECOS (T-AO 197) during a training exercise. The chopper's landing gear apparently snagged a metal safety net and the helicopter flipped over into the water and quickly sank. Eleven Marines were rescued by special warfare crewmen on two nearby boats. But six Marines and a sailor drowned, their bodies recovered later from the sunken wreckage by an unmanned submersible vehicle. (http://navysite.de/planes/ch46.htm#gallery)

This video is a dupe... http://www.videosift.com/story.php?id=7331

Its previous appearance was as part of a compilation, however, and this version it is clear what happened- you can see the bad landing and the gear getting caught in the safety net.

This has to be one of the most intensely emotional videos I've seen in a long while. Taken from three different angles by a hobbyist group, the rocket explodes 29 seconds after lift-off when it falls back to earth. I apologize in advance if anyone is offended by the death (not directly recorded) that occured as a result of the explosion, but I felt there was ample merit for the submission.

From wikipedia:

A long string of successful Soyuz launches was broken on October 15, 2002 when the unmanned Soyuz U launch of the Photon-M satellite from Plesetsk fell back near the launch pad and exploded 29 seconds after lift-off. One person was killed and eight injured.

From Youtube:

A Russian Soyuz rocket carrying a Foton M-1 satellite has a total failure during launch and collides into the Earth with a large explosion. Caught on camera by multiple people from different angles by a hobby or fan group (ESA Team). One person was killed and 8 were injured, they were workers for the project and are not seen on camera.

@pho3n1x: If only your serious doubts about the incident specifically in question had any bearing on what actually happened. Allow me to draw your attention to:

On Dec. 9, 1999, a CH-46 Sea Knight helicopter, with 18 people on board, crashed while attempting to land on the Navy tanker PECOS (T-AO 197) during a training exercise. The chopper's landing gear apparently snagged a metal safety net and the helicopter flipped over into the water and quickly sank. Eleven Marines were rescued by special warfare crewmen on two nearby boats. But six Marines and a sailor drowned, their bodies recovered later from the sunken wreckage by an unmanned submersible vehicle. (http://navysite.de/planes/ch46.htm#gallery)

It seems easier to cope with fatalities such as these by presuming that they died doing what they loved after having accepted the inherent occupational risks, but the dead have no voice to be heard and certainly no mouths into which we may put words. Nice though it would be to believe otherwise, I still can't get all jazzed up about an aircrash montage, the context and individual consequences of which were lost and replaced by a shitty 90s altrock soundtrack.