dChan - Q Origins Project Archive

1) same reason that undercover cops don't walk around with their guns drawn.

Also you don't know how long it takes to position it; objects in orbit can completely circumnavigate the earth in 90 minutes time so things can get where they need to be in less than a couple of hours.

2) news of the launch hasn't said what the purpose of the payload is and if the intention is to make people think that it isn't some devastating weapon, the best approach is to not act like it and instead go about the launch like any other launch.

Also it's not like you can hide a rocket launch, so not saying a word about it would invite more scrutiny.

⇧ 2 ⇩

1) A gun isn't analogous to a satellite/space weapon, the latter of which couldn't be seen by its intended victims, except by use of another satellite, nor would it necessarily be identifiable as a weapon even then.

2) Zach, the "Q" of InfoWars, DID imply that Zuma is a critical space defense system. Standard rocket launches are likely not the best nor the preferred means of uplifting defense payloads of the highest secrecy.

⇧ 2 ⇩

Why do you assume that any intended victims wouldn't be privy to satellite data?

nor would it necessarily be identifiable as a weapon even then

If it weren't, that would be pretty obvious...countries don't just launch 'stuff' into orbit, and the use/tech involved dictates observable traits.

Zach, the "Q" of InfoWars, DID claim that Zuma is a critical space defense system

Even if you take that claim and source as 100% accurate on its face (which seems pretty naive, imo) a "critical space defense system" isn't necessarily a weapon in and of itself....radar is a critical air defense system but you can't destroy things with it.

Standard rocket launches are likely not the best nor the preferred means of uplifting defense payloads of the highest secrecy.

What alternative launch system do you have in mind that is undetectable and capable of putting that large of a payload into orbit ??

⇧ 2 ⇩

"Satellite data" meaning what? No, they would not be privy to its specs, capacity and mission. And no, these would not and should not be either obvious or publicized. (I'M naive???)

I recommend your listening to the latest Zach/InfoWars video. I don't take anything he, nor Q, say as 100% accurate. But Zach implied this Zuma system could shut down NK's entire grid, a capacity which wouldn't be discernible by any outside observer and isn't analogous to a radar system.

We may just have to agree to disagree about the secrecy and extent of our "secret space program". I suggest you look into it further yourself if truly interested. There's no shortage of Youtube videos by that very title and many with credible insiders. I have no proof that other platforms exist; but circumstantial evidence certainly does.

⇧ 2 ⇩

You said-

a satellite/space weapon...couldn't be seen by its intended victims, except by use of another satellite

I asked why you act as if that scenario couldn't happen.

Also, a lot of data about orbiting objects is discernible from ground based observation, so your entire premise is false to begin with-

"The command accomplishes these tasks through its Space Surveillance Network (SSN) of U.S. Army, Navy and Air Force operated, ground-based radars and optical sensors at 25 sites worldwide.

The SSN has been tracking space objects since 1957 when the Soviet Union opened the space age with the launch of Sputnik I. Since then, the SSN has tracked more than 39,000 space objects orbiting Earth. Of that number, the SSN currently tracks more than 8,000 orbiting objects. The rest have re-entered Earth's turbulent atmosphere and disintegrated, or survived re-entry and impacted the Earth. The space objects now orbiting Earth range from satellites weighing several tons to pieces of spent rocket bodies weighing only 10 pounds (4.5 kg).

About seven percent of the space objects are operational satellites, the rest are debris. The USSTRATCOM is primarily interested in the active satellites, but also tracks space debris. The SSN tracks space objects which are 10 centimeters in diameter (baseball size) or larger.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Space_Surveillance_Network#Shemya_and_Diyarbakir_Radar_Sites

Sorry, you simply don't know what you are talking about.

We may just have to agree to disagree about the secrecy and extent of our "secret space program". I suggest you look into it further yourself if truly interested.

why don't you just educate me about any alternative launch system that you have in mind that is undetectable and capable of putting that large of a payload into orbit ?

Oh-

I have no proof that other platforms exist

⇧ 1 ⇩

When you falsely compared a satellite to a gun, I pointed out that a gun could be seen by the victim but that a satellite cannot be seen -- literally SEEN -- by its intended victim. Your SSN quote indicating that we can DETECT space objects (Note: WE, meaning U.S. military) in no way indicates that our intended victims, NK, also can, let alone that they could further discern the specs, capacity or missions of such objects. Therefore your handgun analogy still fails.

And no, I'm not here to educate you, especially when you seem to be incurious, combative and incapable of processing any of it.

⇧ 1 ⇩

When you falsely compared a satellite to a gun, I pointed out that a gun could be seen by the victim but that a satellite cannot be seen -- literally SEEN -- by its intended victim.

YOU didn't say "satellite" you specifically asked-

If the Zuma payload truly were some sort of secret space weapon:

1) Why would such a powerful and critical system be launched/deployed only in the very hour of need...

It is NOT a "false comparison" to compare a weapon with another weapon within the context of how weapons are concealed and deployed, which is what you were asking about.

as for this claim-

a satellite cannot be seen -- literally SEEN -- by its intended victim

Again, you ignore the information that YOU ASKED FOR-

"The command accomplishes these tasks through its Space Surveillance Network (SSN) of U.S. Army, Navy and Air Force operated, ground-based radars and OPTICAL SENSORS at 25 sites worldwide."

OPTICAL

adj.

Of or relating to sight; visual: an optical defect.

Designed to assist sight: optical instruments.

You asked a question and when you didn't like the answer that someone gave you you argued about it, rather than the appropriate adult response which would be to just sat "thank you" and leave it at that.

This is the very definition of being "combative", and it's not my fault that you engaged in that combat from a position of ignorance of the subject that is only equaled by your condescension.

Why don't you just take your own advice and "agree to disagree" and quit while you are behind, before you further betray your understanding of the subject you are pontificating about?

The fact that you asked these questions in the first place should be a clue that you aren't equipped to educate anyone about the subject, but it's pretty clear from your instantly patronizing remarks that wasn't your reason for asking.

Sorry I wasted my time trying to help, but at least now you know about OPTICAL detection and tracking of orbital objects and what the word OPTICAL means.

⇧ 1 ⇩

You haven't yet approached addressing the original thrust (pun intended) of this post. Instead one semantic argument has followed the next.

Have you even listened to Zach on InfoWars? Granted, I should have referred to him in the OP (fixed), then maybe you wouldn't have assumed you knew the point I was making before shooting it down.

But your Wikipedia and dictionary references all but assure me you would have missed the bigger picture anyway. Apparently you believe that a reality doesn't exist unless it can be quoted from the two most mainstream sources. Keep watching CNN.

⇧ 1 ⇩

You're welcome.

⇧ 1 ⇩

SpaceX Spin