Not impressed yet? What if I tell you this plane was designed in the 1950's?

Such an amazing piece of engineering.

They were originally going to put guns on it, but found that it would fly faster than any bullet, so used it as a reconnaissance plane instead. (it also flys faster than any surface-to-air missile, so by the time it was detected it was already out of range)

"A tenth of every still image recorded of our world was taken in the last twelve months."

Did he mix up the numbers? It doesn't quite fit with the 3.5T total, 4B last year (~0.1%).

No matter.

What I am interested in however is this: are pictures taken by the military included in the estimate of analog photography or did they use their own stock of film that was not part of the official production record?

Military reconnaissance must have been a noticeable portion of total pictures taken, at least up to the '50s or '60s, right?

So timid by today's standards.. Watch how it drives 'em wild!
I wonder if that kind of innocence can ever be regained.. a sort of reconnaissance love affair with erotic mystery -- instead of the kind of torrid rapture we have with celebrity bikini competitions.

I'm totally unsure as to what technique these images are shot at, BUT in scout films (which are low dose backscatter images for reconnaissance purposes) you can see nonmetallic objects in peoples rectums, and diapers, and shit inside of diapers, and even whether or not someone is wearing a tampon. I'd have to know what Kvp is used to make a better guess as to whether or not these scanners would pick up radiolucent materials lodged up into a rectum, but I'm fairly certain they will be high energy enough to see a diaper (since it's on the outside of the body).

but, i'm not sure how they're going to handle the diaper issue. lots of adults wear diapers and there's no way to tell on film if the diaper is soiled or if it's loaded with explosives. how embarrassing for everyone involved.


>> ^joedirt:


Why x-ray anyone when it can't detect anything in your rectum? What is the point? There is not safety in it.
You realize backscatter cannot detect someone wearing a diaper full of powder. The ONLY reason for any of this is the DHS director is making money for every new machine installed. PERIOD. The groping is only to make sure everyone "willingly" goes through the new machines, so as to justify buying more. PERIOD.

>> ^shole:
interesting
what would the practical application be, apart from creeping people out?


Most likely locating survivors in collapsed buildings, and maybe even military reconnaissance!

>> ^shole:
interesting
what would the practical application be, apart from creeping people out?


Maybe reconnaissance.. and finding survivors in collapsed buildings.


Also sex-bot!

>> ^shole:
interesting
what would the practical application be, apart from creeping people out?


Finding survivors in collapsed buildings. Reconnaissance on enemy military targets.

>> ^shole:
interesting
what would the practical application be, apart from creeping people out?


Just off the top of my head, remote access to places like extremely confined places like the rubble of crushed buildings (probably for reconnaissance), or any other place where wheeled/legged robots may have difficulty moving.

I think this site provides a good debunking of this video. What I like about it specifically is that it's from a known figure within the "truther" movement. What he's insinuating is that the "magic show" theorists such as CIT are likely paid to discredit any call for more information, and provide a distraction from more pressing questions about more plausible scenarios.

Specifically he asks:
* How was it possible that the Pentagon was hit 1 hour and 20 minutes after the attacks began?

* Why was there no response from Andrews Air Force Base, just over 10 miles away and home to Air National Guard units charged with defending the skies above the nation’s capital?

* Why did F-16s fail to protect Washington on 9/11? Was the Langley emergency response sabotaged?

* Why did Flight 77 hit a part of the building opposite from the high command and mostly empty and under renovation, with majority of victims being civilian accountants?

* Why were Pentagon workers not evacuated or warned that Flight 77 was approaching, despite those in the bunker tracking the attack plane as it closed the final 50 miles to the Pentagon?

* How could Flight 77 have been piloted through its extreme aerobatic final maneuvers by Hani Hanjour, a failed Cessna pilot who had never flown a jet?

* Why did the flight instructor who certified Hani Hanjour, a former Israeli paratrooper, disappear a few days after his 9/11 Commission interview?

* Why was a war game drill used to vacate the National Reconnaissance Office for the duration of the attack?

* How was a C-130 pilot able to intercept the plane incoming to the Pentagon while NORAD was not?

* Did the Pentagon, the nerve center of the US military, really have no missile or anti-aircraft defenses?

* What were Vice-president Cheney’s orders when Norman Mineta described him speaking to a young man in the presidential bunker as the plane approached, saying, “Of course the orders still stand, have you heard anything to the contrary?“

For a conspiracy moderate like myself, these questions deserve addressing. Particularly questions about how a plane was allowed to reach the pentagon in the first place. Any politician claiming to be "tough on security" ought to be able to answer for how, on his watch, a commercial airliner piloted by an untrained pilot was able to strike the nerve center of the US military almost an hour after we had already been attacked.

If nothing more nefarious, Dick Cheney should have been indicted for gross negligence on that day.

>> ^gwiz665:
On March 14th, 1973 John McCain was released from captivity in North Korea.


What the hell was McCain doing in Korea? His ass was supposed to be in Vietnam -- fuckin' flyboys can't even perform a simple reconnaissance mission!

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.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'military' to 'military, U2, spy, plane, air force, reconnaissance' - edited by MarineGunrock

Tags for this video have been changed from 'military' to 'military, U2, spy, plane, air force, reconnaissance' - edited by MarineGunrock

Between this and the video of the little robots that can climb trees...pretty scary. Let's remember that technology is non-linear and that smart, agile and adaptive robots will be commonplace in the near future. "Law enforcement" will have a field day. No longer will you worry about video cameras recording your moves from traffic poles. It will be the "Automated Reconnaissance Assets" watching you from any convenient location and exacting "justice" as required. Just as military pilots are now controlling drones in the Middle East from the US, your local police will be controlling remote assets from their stations (no, not Dunkin' Donuts).

The shape of things to come...

You're right. those are Mirage III RS. The swiss air force had 60 of them since 1965. ironically they received completely new electronics and computer systems (i bet expensive ones) shortly before they were dismissed in 1999. few of them served for training and reconnaissance until 2005. i had to deal with them during my military service in air defence, and though i'm kind of a pacifist and environmentalist, i have to admit they're both beautiful and impressive and it was fascinating to watch them.