Evan Burton

Charles,

That's okay. I have never been inside a B-52H so am unfamiliar with the display systems and if they do have some type of visual warning system inside. Happy to accept your source's statement on this for the while.

The flight characteristics section though, well, I think they are wrong - for the reasons I mentioned in my initial post. I'll see if I can locate any B-52 pilots who have flown with the AGM-129 and see what they say.

Thanks for the clarification.

Bill, for some reason your post #533 appeared seven times. I deleted the first six, leaving the latest.

Were they intentionally stored in the same room or was that another problem of inattention?

My guess is that they were stored together intentionally, confident in the fact that other safeguards would forstall any problems.

This relates to a program I saw about air disasters - rairly is a single event to blame - usually a chain of mistakes/events are to blame - each one taken alone, no big deal, sequence them together ...

Steve,

That's another of the aviation accident cause theories.

I think I have previously mentioned the Reason Model, where you have slices of Swiss cheese. The slices are our defences against an accident but we have holes in them (human errors, inattention, etc). Sometimes all the holes line up and ..... accident.

The one you refer to is the Boeing 'Chain of Events' model. Every accident has a chain of events leading up to it, normally about 7 to 10 events. Stop one of those events and you stop the accident (break the chain).

The two 747s on the ground at Tenerife is an example of this. If the terrorist bomb threat had not happened, the aircraft would not have been diverted there. If the airfield had been bigger, there would have been no delays in refuelling and no need to backtrack down the runway. If it hadn't of been that time of year, then the afternoon fog would not have been there. If the PanAm crew had understood the taxy instructions, they would not have missed the first exit. If the KLM crew had not been so mismatched (senior Check Captain, junior flappy & engines), then the flappy would have been more forceful in checking the takeoff clearance. If the two aircraft had not transmitted at the same time, then the tower and the PanAm crew would have heard the rolling call from the KLM aircraft.

Lots of things, any one of which if removed would have prevented the accident.

Were they intentionally stored in the same room or was that another problem of inattention?

Good question. We'd have to see what the SOPs (both local and Command) for Special Weapons Handling & Storage were... and we ain't gonna see that publicly, fer sure.

I don't see it as a coincidence that only involved this one day in question. Rather I see it as a culmination of people getting lazy, not following complete and correct procedures, and not following checklists. This is not to say that nukes were inadvertantly transported before this but the practices which led to the transportation were likely happening for a long time.

Matt - agreed. There are literally thousands of documented incidents in military aviation alone where complacency, inattention or omission are active factors.

I still think, though, that storing conventional and special weapons in the same room was just asking for trouble. How people could have not seen that coming, I don't know.

• How experienced pilots could fly from North Dakota to Louisiana allegedly without knowing they were carrying live nuclear weapons – despite onboard systems designed to alert the flight crew to the presence of same, and altered flight characteristics caused by the unique nuclear loads.

Charles, could you take me through this one please?

- Onboard systems: how does this work or more properly, how does it indicate to the crew they are carrying a nuke?

- Altered flight characteristics: how? Crews need to train with the AGM-129, whether it be with dummy (stores only) versions so they get used to the aircraft with such loads, or training versions fitted with a dummy warhead for range qualification, etc. If the warhead itself is replaced, the inert load would be about the same weight. The shape of the AGM-129 would not have altered, and the weight would not have changed substantially. How would the crews have noticed different flight characteristics?

Thanks.

There is a tag: NUKE WARHEAD.

From a Washington Post report a few weeks ago, there were six cruise missles mounted on each wing of the B-52, each taken from a bunker that housed both regular cruise missles and nuke warhead cruise missiles. The airman with the clipboard checked the closest six missles, not tagged: NUKE WARHEAD, and assumed the other six were the same.

The pilot did not check invitory or manifest as he should, and when they landed in La. the Nuke Warhead tags on the six missiles on the one wing were not checked or recognized for a few hours after landing. That airman, when he got around to getting ready to unload the missiles, and noticed the NUKE WARHEAD tag on the missiles, set off the first alarm.

Which is still sounding and is yet to stop echo.......

My take, thus far, and has nothing to do with Cheney & Co., but rather, SNAFU.

I stand to be corrected.

BK

BK

Bill,

Okay, thanks. So what we have here is a case where because a preflight check of the stores on the pylon was not carried out (which I presume is a preflight check to be made by at least one of the designated crews), no-one aboard the aircraft knew that the AGM-129s were actually carrying a warhead. That is a little different case to "onboard systems" alerting the crew. Sure, the pylon is onboard the aircraft, and is part of the aircraft system, but the impression I originally gained was that there was some type of light or indicating panel within the cockpit telling the crew the stores were nuclear-armed.

I know in some multi-crew aircraft there is a "Nuclear Consent" switch. Essentially it is a polling switch. All or designated crew members must agree they have a valid reason to launch an armed nuclear weapon. If one station does not agree, then the weapon cannot be armed / launched. This switch does not indicate they have a nuke; it is just used when deploying such a weapons.

I just sent you a PM asking you to please not alter my posts ... I also asked you since you are on the forum , why you don't allow my other posts to be submitted now on the other Apollo threads ?

It looks like there might be a reason you don't want to submit my other posts .... So why are you issuing me a formal warning when I have done nothing wrong ? ... I know for a fact what image I put in my post ... It was the Alan Shepard photo from the Apollo Image Gallery , not the study I put here yesterday for Jack .

Once more:

1. I have not altered or edited your posts in any way.

2. I am not unduly holding up your posts; in fact I am attending to them as fast as I can. The only posts I am not touching are posts made by Jack. I have stated I will refrain from moderating his posts (that includes approving them) and I am adhering to that undertaking.

3. I brought to your attention the fact that the image did not match the description. That's all. The security logs will show I did NOT alter the post in any way. I'd suggest you made an error in the original post. Easy to do, and we can all make mistakes.

4. You are being formally warned because of your unfounded public accusations - such as another one in the quoted post ("It looks like there might be a reason you don't want to submit my other posts..."). These accusations are a form of abuse or harassment. If you have claims of such a serious nature, bring them to the attention of John or Andy as soon as possible. DO NOT MAKE PUBLIC ACCUSATIONS OF WRONGDOING AGAINST A FORUM MEMBER.

I would ask John or Andy to - once again - publicly confirm that I have not altered Duane's posts / images in any way.

In this post, Duane has accused me of altering an image posted by him.

The specific phrase was: "You didn't by any chance "fix" that image for me , did you Evan ?"

Normally complaints go into the complaints thread.

If you have an accusation of a serious nature such as this (a moderator tampering with a post that is not part of their normal moderation duties), then bring it to the attention of John or Andy via PM as soon as possible. John and Andy will check the security logs and advise you.

Do NOT make a public accusation such as the above.

Duane is formally warned.

That doesn't look like AS14-66-9231 or any part of it that immediately comes to mind.

Are you sure you haven't mixed up your images?

That's the one you are asking about in another thread, and which you say (or rather Jack says) the catalogue number was unavailable at the time.

I photo of Al Shepard is fixed .... I didn't "mix up the images" ... but somebody else sure did .

You didn't by any chance "fix" that image for me , did you Evan ?

Your accusation is noted. Formal warning Duane.

• How experienced pilots could fly from North Dakota to Louisiana allegedly without knowing they were carrying live nuclear weapons – despite onboard systems designed to alert the flight crew to the presence of same, and altered flight characteristics caused by the unique nuclear loads.

Charles, could you take me through this one please?

- Onboard systems: how does this work or more properly, how does it indicate to the crew they are carrying a nuke?

- Altered flight characteristics: how? Crews need to train with the AGM-129, whether it be with dummy (stores only) versions so they get used to the aircraft with such loads, or training versions fitted with a dummy warhead for range qualification, etc. If the warhead itself is replaced, the inert load would be about the same weight. The shape of the AGM-129 would not have altered, and the weight would not have changed substantially. How would the crews have noticed different flight characteristics?

Thanks.

That doesn't look like AS14-66-9231 or any part of it that immediately comes to mind.

Are you sure you haven't mixed up your images?

That's the one you are asking about in another thread, and which you say (or rather Jack says) the catalogue number was unavailable at the time.

But that would give away what it is ... You're suppossed to guess how such a ridiculous looking image could have possibly been photographed on the Moon.

Without context, it is pointless. Has the crop been enlarge / reduced / rotated? Which mission? Probably most important - what do you claim is wrong / in the image?

You might as well claim this is faked:

And sometimes people just like to get their facts right, or understand circumstances.

Person A says "I have a pink elephant". Whist this statement might be true, it's beneficial to know that the reason the elephant is pink is because it was painted pink.

So if Person B asks if the elephant was pink by natural pigment of the skin, it's not derailing or disinformation or an attack.

So if Person C questions the statement by Person A because Person C is under the impression that there were no such things as naturally pink elephants, it is not questioning the integrity or honesty of Person A.

So if Person D agrees with Person C, and quotes an official report which says there are no such things as naturally occurring pink elephants, they are not ganging up on someone to defend an official theory. It does not make them a pack. It does not make them drones.

It's seeking clarification because their understanding does not coincide with the statement.

I was originally referring to "The Great Global Warming Swindle" which was quite convincing... but actually ended up being wrong in several areas. Have a look here.

Likewise, as you have pointed out Stephen, there are some faults with the Gore film.

The inaccuracies are:

* The film claims that melting snows on Mount Kilimanjaro evidence global warming. The Government’s expert was forced to concede that this is not correct.

* The film suggests that evidence from ice cores proves that rising CO2 causes temperature increases over 650,000 years. The Court found that the film was misleading: over that period the rises in CO2 lagged behind the temperature rises by 800-2000 years.

* The film uses emotive images of Hurricane Katrina and suggests that this has been caused by global warming. The Government’s expert had to accept that it was “not possible” to attribute one-off events to global warming.

* The film shows the drying up of Lake Chad and claims that this was caused by global warming. The Government’s expert had to accept that this was not the case.

* The film claims that a study showed that polar bears had drowned due to disappearing arctic ice. It turned out that Mr Gore had misread the study: in fact four polar bears drowned and this was because of a particularly violent storm.

* The film threatens that global warming could stop the Gulf Stream throwing Europe into an ice age: the Claimant’s evidence was that this was a scientific impossibility.

* The film blames global warming for species losses including coral reef bleaching. The Government could not find any evidence to support this claim.

* The film suggests that the Greenland ice covering could melt causing sea levels to rise dangerously. The evidence is that Greenland will not melt for millennia.

* The film suggests that the Antarctic ice covering is melting. The evidence was that it is in fact increasing.

* The film suggests that sea levels could rise by 7m causing the displacement of millions of people. In fact the evidence is that sea levels are expected to rise by about 40cm over the next hundred years and that there is no such threat of massive migration.

* The film claims that rising sea levels has caused the evacuation of certain Pacific islands to New Zealand. The Government are unable to substantiate this and the Court observed that this appears to be a false claim.

So while I agree with the basic premise of the film (global warming is a real problem), it has errors, and those errors should be brought to peoples attention. They should be acknowledged. It doesn't alter the overall validity of the film.

Thomas,

You might be unaware of a post I made regarding images on the Political Conspiracies sub-forum. Andy has to regularly delete attachments to keep the Forum running correctly. Now, this doesn't quite apply to the JFK section; John won't delete any attachments from threads that are being read or important to JFK research. If the images you have posted are important to you and you want them to always be visible, then you should consider joining an image-hosting site such as Photobucket or similar and uploading them there. Happy to assist you if required.

Peter - another example:

http://www.debunking911.com/jones.htm

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/...Eagar-0112.html

http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/introduction

I haven't said anything, but my links speak for me.... or do they?

What do they say?

Evan, you're just another of those IMO out to cast doubt....a technique used to discredit.

Peter of course only objects to casting doubt on theories he believes in

You noticed that too? I am fine that Peter disagrees with my assessment, and he should post whatever he believes supports his case. By the same token, though, I expect to be able to support my views without any denigration of those views - as should anyone.

Miles and others:

Please consider people's download speeds when you post images. The fact that you host off-site is very much appreciated, but if you have a large image consider putting a link (URL) only rather than the image tags.

Having large images slows down our speed; it can also affect those without broadband. If you can link to large images rather than post them, it would be appreciated.

Thanks!

Thirty-seven years ago today, Project Apollo put the first humans on the surface of the Moon. The next time the U.S. launches its astronauts to Earth's natural satellite, they will do so as part of Project Orion, collectSPACE.com has learned.

NASA intends to use the moniker Orion as both the title for its next generation manned craft, the Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV), and as the project's name. This approach is modeled after the 1960's program when Apollo Command Modules launched astronauts under Project Apollo.

Under Project Orion, NASA would launch crews of four astronauts aboard Orion capsules, first to Earth orbit and the International Space Station and then later to the Moon.

Two teams, one led by Lockheed Martin and the other a joint effort by Northrop Grumman and The Boeing Co., are currently competing to build the CEV. NASA is expected to select the winner in September.

In June, NASA announced that its crew launch vehicle, which would lift the CEV into space, would be named Ares 1, with Ares 5 reserved for a larger booster to haul cargo or a future Moon lander.

At the time, NASA's Associate Administrator for Exploration Scott Horowitz said that the reason he wasn't also releasing the name of the CEV at the same time had to do with the legal process related to federal trademarks.

"We have to make sure we aren't infringing on any copyrights or anything," Horowitz said, describing how Ares was selected. "You have to go through that whole process and that just takes time."

At the same June 30th press conference, Constellation program director Jeff Hanley said that the name for the CEV was close to being finalized.

"We are trading three or four names at this point. There is a running, leading candidate that of course, I can't talk about yet because we have to go through a process to have it vetted and approved. Hopefully, I'd like to think that in a month we'd be able to role that out," said Hanley.

NASA spokesperson Dolores Beasley told collectSPACE, a SPACE.com partner, today that NASA did not have a name for the CEV at this time.

Yet a publicly-accessible federal trademark search shows that NASA was granted the use of Orion on July 14, 2006 for use with "command modules" and "crew capsules", as well as crew and cargo launch vehicles.

Sources close to the agency confirmed to collectSPACE that the name Orion was in the final stages of approval.

Earlier documents obtained in January by collectSPACE used the names Antares and Artemis as 'notional' titles for the CEV. Orion will soon officially replace those other names for internal and external use, though when NASA will announce Orion is not yet known.

In addition to its association with Greek mythology, which includes tales of Apollo and Artemis, Orion is also one of the most recognizable constellations in the night sky, that of the embattled hunter. Project Orion was also the title given to a 1960s project to design a nuclear pulse-driven spacecraft.

http://www.space.com/news/060720_cev_orion.html

***************************

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

***************************

Now, if I wanted to make a point, I might say:

Why would NASA base future programmes on systems that didn't work? They could easily say "New times - let's start from scratch" and no-one would question this. Instead, they base their programme on a system that supposed was unable to work. Why not, with better knowledge, better technology, do it right this time?

***************************

See what I mean?

Evan, you're just another of those IMO out to cast doubt....a technique used to discredit.

No, I simply look at the evidence and disagree with you. You can present contrary evidence - in fact I urge you to. Let everyone look at it, and consider it.

The people of "Patriots for Truth" (sorry, I forget if that is the actual name, or if it is something different but similar) present their version of the facts. That's great. Let's all hear all sides of the story.

I'm asking people to consider other sides of the argument. Consider the other side... research the propositions put by each side, THEN decide what you believe.

If one side is telling lies, then it will be shown up with time. Each side should make sure that any lies by the other side are exposed. truth will out. Facts are stubborn things.

I have seen a lot of innuendo - some of which might be correct - but I haven't seen any evidence for it as yet.

Perhaps the neighbour, after admiring your TV, found someone who wanted to sell him the same model at a very cheap price. Perhaps the TV was stolen.... perhaps it might have been dropped. It might have been a display unit with lots of time on the clock and pretty much almost through it's service life. Perhaps your neighbour (who did not attend the same church as you) had a fellow traveller who owned a store which sold that unit, had floor stock they needed to clear, and gave it to a fellow parishioner at a good discount?

You can make a lot of assumptions if you don't know the facts.

When thinking about what people have said, please also consider this webpage.

From the Washington Post.

At least 1 Colonel will be relieved - possibly a General.

The most frightening thing is not that the nukes were allowed to fly - but sat on the runways at both bases for hours UNGUARDED!

There's more security at the local WalMart.

That's understandable to a degree. They were thought to be conventional, so no special precautions were taken. I'd be interested in learning what is SOP for armed aircraft, though. Even with conventional weapons, an armed aircraft is a target and a threat to everything around it.

If they thought it was armed with practice / dummy stores, then it is very understandable... although all our dummy stores (inert) are painted blue so you can visually tell.

Good point. A definition has been posted.

If you feel further clarification is required, suggest to John or Andy that something regarding a definition of trolls / trolling be posted.

Thread locked.

Welcome David!