|
Post by Lokifan on Dec 26, 2016 17:15:44 GMT
Oh, let's go further...
The system, as shown, is primitive and just a fun way to do a demonstration.
If you really want to control someone's movements, you could design a system of surgical implants that couldn't easily be removed. Put one on the heart, and you'd have a way to coerce your victim.
Do as I say or else...
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Dec 26, 2016 18:43:23 GMT
And having the victim not rip the electrodes off.... that may be a bind... Once you have the electrodes in place ripping them off is not a problem. You would have to put them on a person whilst they were asleep or tied up though in the first place. superglue.
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Dec 27, 2016 9:45:30 GMT
And having the victim not rip the electrodes off.... that may be a bind... Once you have the electrodes in place ripping them off is not a problem. You would have to put them on a person whilst they were asleep or tied up though in the first place. And as soon as I wake up and my arm twitches without me telling it to?... Erm... OK, Truth be told, if it was a leg, I would probably not freak out, as that is part of my spinal injury, I get the occasional leg twitch in the calf now and again. No it doesnt affect how I drive,, its more cramp than suddenly kicking a pedal, if it was kicking a pedal, I would re-asses my ability to drive. But anyway, if it did happen, the first thing I would be doing is self examination, and if I am finding "Wires", they are coming off... I cite the medical services on this one, when I "came too" after dying on the road that time back when I was 18, I woke up several times, once in Hospital, hooked up to something that looked like it fell off the starship Enterprise... first thing I do is start unhooking all the wires... I am calmed down by a Nurse, I apologise, when I realise where I am, and she tells me its quite a common thing. You would have to fully sedate the victim and then keep them under sedation, either fully or partly.?..
|
|
|
Post by mrfatso on Dec 27, 2016 15:39:09 GMT
Once you have the electrodes in place ripping them off is not a problem. You would have to put them on a person whilst they were asleep or tied up though in the first place. And as soon as I wake up and my arm twitches without me telling it to?... Erm... OK, Truth be told, if it was a leg, I would probably not freak out, as that is part of my spinal injury, I get the occasional leg twitch in the calf now and again. No it doesnt affect how I drive,, its more cramp than suddenly kicking a pedal, if it was kicking a pedal, I would re-asses my ability to drive. But anyway, if it did happen, the first thing I would be doing is self examination, and if I am finding "Wires", they are coming off... I cite the medical services on this one, when I "came too" after dying on the road that time back when I was 18, I woke up several times, once in Hospital, hooked up to something that looked like it fell off the starship Enterprise... first thing I do is start unhooking all the wires... I am calmed down by a Nurse, I apologise, when I realise where I am, and she tells me its quite a common thing. You would have to fully sedate the victim and then keep them under sedation, either fully or partly.?.. Not if the person positioning the wires on your body is waiting for you as you wake up and takes control of your body and prevents you self examining and taking the electrodes off. Yes it would mean in order to gain permanent mind control,of a subject you would need to either make sure they were sedated unless you were in control or implant the elctrodes under the skin and simulate them wirelessly like some pace makes. Or you accept that you have only a certain amount of time to control the subject.
|
|
|
Post by mrfatso on Dec 27, 2016 15:42:47 GMT
I watched the program on World War 2 weapons today and noticed an error. The Bat bomb would not have been dropped by B-52 bombers, which are as we all know were developed in the 1950s as they said and the graphic showed, B-17s or B-29s possibly or redo the Dolittle raid and use Mitchell's.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Dec 27, 2016 15:54:11 GMT
I watched the program on World War 2 weapons today and noticed an error. The Bat bomb would not have been dropped by B-52 bombers, which are as we all know were developed in the 1950s as they said and the graphic showed, B-17s or B-29s possibly or redo the Dolittle raid and use Mitchell's. they also had no mnetion at all of the Japanese balloon bombs, which were a program that was actually implemented, actually did significant damage, and quite possibly would have been successful except that the media all cooperated in burying any mention of it - which made the japanese planners abandon the program as unsuccessful.
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Dec 27, 2016 19:16:48 GMT
I watched the program on World War 2 weapons today and noticed an error. The Bat bomb would not have been dropped by B-52 bombers, which are as we all know were developed in the 1950s as they said and the graphic showed, B-17s or B-29s possibly or redo the Dolittle raid and use Mitchell's. they also had no mnetion at all of the Japanese balloon bombs, which were a program that was actually implemented, actually did significant damage, and quite possibly would have been successful except that the media all cooperated in burying any mention of it - which made the japanese planners abandon the program as unsuccessful. The 'Bat Bomb' would have been dropped by B17 or B25 bombers, the B29 wasn't in service at the time. Or it wouid have been dropped if the American Bombers could have reached the Japanese mainland at that point in the war, which I don't think they could. Then again, I would imagine bats would weigh far less and take up less space than conventional bombs. So they may have been able to add additional fuel tanks in the bomb bay to increase range. I'm not aware of the Japanese Balloon bombs, which I seem to recall were incendiary bombs, doing anything that could remotely be called 'significant damage'. I believe they started some minor fires and that was about it. News was suppressed to avoid panic, and probably to head off any possibility of someone in Japan suggesting using chemical weapons.
|
|
|
Post by mrfatso on Dec 27, 2016 20:02:30 GMT
The B-29 entered active service in the early Summer of 1944, the Batbombs was still in development at the time there is no reason it could not have been deployed using that aircraft. Stricly speaking a Liberator or other aamerican bomber could also have been used as well. Yes range would have been an issue, that's part of why I suggested a Dollittle type raid.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Dec 27, 2016 23:52:53 GMT
they also had no mnetion at all of the Japanese balloon bombs, which were a program that was actually implemented, actually did significant damage, and quite possibly would have been successful except that the media all cooperated in burying any mention of it - which made the japanese planners abandon the program as unsuccessful. The 'Bat Bomb' would have been dropped by B17 or B25 bombers, the B29 wasn't in service at the time. Or it wouid have been dropped if the American Bombers could have reached the Japanese mainland at that point in the war, which I don't think they could. Then again, I would imagine bats would weigh far less and take up less space than conventional bombs. So they may have been able to add additional fuel tanks in the bomb bay to increase range. I'm not aware of the Japanese Balloon bombs, which I seem to recall were incendiary bombs, doing anything that could remotely be called 'significant damage'. I believe they started some minor fires and that was about it. News was suppressed to avoid panic, and probably to head off any possibility of someone in Japan suggesting using chemical weapons. I think they cause more deaths after the war than during the war, but they did start some forest fires. had the program continued, it could have made a difference, though on the other hand it may not have. Fort Stevens in Astoria was also shelled by a Japanese submarine (something mentioned in a recent episode of Code Black (TV show)) I've heard a story that a sub commander also shipped a specially built plane on a submarine, and bombed part of the west coast - also doing relatively minor damage; but I don't know if that story is true or not.
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Dec 28, 2016 10:15:17 GMT
they also had no mnetion at all of the Japanese balloon bombs, which were a program that was actually implemented, actually did significant damage, and quite possibly would have been successful except that the media all cooperated in burying any mention of it - which made the japanese planners abandon the program as unsuccessful. The 'Bat Bomb' would have been dropped by B17 or B25 bombers, the B29 wasn't in service at the time. Or it wouid have been dropped if the American Bombers could have reached the Japanese mainland at that point in the war, which I don't think they could. Then again, I would imagine bats would weigh far less and take up less space than conventional bombs. So they may have been able to add additional fuel tanks in the bomb bay to increase range. I'm not aware of the Japanese Balloon bombs, which I seem to recall were incendiary bombs, doing anything that could remotely be called 'significant damage'. I believe they started some minor fires and that was about it. News was suppressed to avoid panic, and probably to head off any possibility of someone in Japan suggesting using chemical weapons. Adding to that, "From what I can find", the actual strike rate was low. They didnt understand jet streams back then, but after a few of the balloon bombs rose up, reversed intended direction,and started floating back towards "Home", they abandoned the plan?.. The actual on target in USA bombs, one set fire to a cow-barn, and another set a forest fire, but other than that, most of them dropped harmlessly, and as stated, the media helped by answering "What balloon bombs?.. we dont know of any balloon bombs?.." Plus a couple were shot down because of being too hard to miss. It was hugely expensive, highly inaccurate, and about as dependable as a bind archer on a windy day 500 yard from the targets?..
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Dec 28, 2016 10:24:08 GMT
Strange subMarines....
The attack on pearl harbour involved 5 "Mini-subs" that were launched outside the harbour with intent to sneak in and cause havoc, they recently found the fourth out of five, and have a good idea where the 5th may be. Maybe one torpedo out of the 10 carried by all of those mini subs found its mark... They also proved that one that was shot outside the harbour WAS shot, and that this being a cople of hours before the actual attack, proves U$A fired the first shot. The 50 cal shot went through the turret and sank the sub. These subs were launched from a larger "Mother sub", had about two hours of battery power, were uncomfortable and highly dangerous to crew.
Onwards to Planes on Subs. They did at some point have a small glider attached to a sub by line that flew up to spot enemy shipping... This was discontinued after a lack of pilots, because if they spotted a destroyer, the sub would dive, and leave the pilot up in the air... if he didnt detach, he would be dragged under. If he did, where to land?..
Carrying anything on a sub depends on ease of deployment, and what to do with it afterwards.
|
|
|
Post by mrfatso on Dec 28, 2016 19:33:22 GMT
Strange subMarines.... The attack on pearl harbour involved 5 "Mini-subs" that were launched outside the harbour with intent to sneak in and cause havoc, they recently found the fourth out of five, and have a good idea where the 5th may be. Maybe one torpedo out of the 10 carried by all of those mini subs found its mark... They also proved that one that was shot outside the harbour WAS shot, and that this being a cople of hours before the actual attack, proves U$A fired the first shot. The 50 cal shot went through the turret and sank the sub. These subs were launched from a larger "Mother sub", had about two hours of battery power, were uncomfortable and highly dangerous to crew. Onwards to Planes on Subs. They did at some point have a small glider attached to a sub by line that flew up to spot enemy shipping... This was discontinued after a lack of pilots, because if they spotted a destroyer, the sub would dive, and leave the pilot up in the air... if he didnt detach, he would be dragged under. If he did, where to land?.. Carrying anything on a sub depends on ease of deployment, and what to do with it afterwards. The French Submarine Surcourf carried a float plane in a hangar on its deck that could be used to direct the twin 8inch guns it also,had in a turret. It was lost in service to the Free French Forces during WW2.
|
|
|
Post by koshka on Feb 1, 2017 19:52:41 GMT
I watched the program on World War 2 weapons today and noticed an error. The Bat bomb would not have been dropped by B-52 bombers, which are as we all know were developed in the 1950s as they said and the graphic showed, B-17s or B-29s possibly or redo the Dolittle raid and use Mitchell's. I had the chance to watch this episode the other day. I don't know where their researchers were getting their facts, but Panjandrum has been in the history books for over a decade, it hardly counts as recently declassified. And everything I've read has Who Me? being used as psychological warfare in the Pacific front, not European. OTOH, I think Kari could have gotten Hajile to work if she'd swapped out the rockets with slightly less powerful ones. The rockets she was using pushed the platform up slightly when they fired, which tells me they had a little too much punch. She needed rockets that weren't strong enough to lift the payload, but strong enough to counter most of the falling.
|
|
|
Post by mrfatso on Feb 1, 2017 23:27:59 GMT
I watched the program on World War 2 weapons today and noticed an error. The Bat bomb would not have been dropped by B-52 bombers, which are as we all know were developed in the 1950s as they said and the graphic showed, B-17s or B-29s possibly or redo the Dolittle raid and use Mitchell's. I had the chance to watch this episode the other day. I don't know where their researchers were getting their facts, but Panjandrum has been in the history books for over a decade, it hardly counts as recently declassified. And everything I've read has Who Me? being used as psychological warfare in the Pacific front, not European. OTOH, I think Kari could have gotten Hajile to work if she'd swapped out the rockets with slightly less powerful ones. The rockets she was using pushed the platform up slightly when they fired, which tells me they had a little too much punch. She needed rockets that weren't strong enough to lift the payload, but strong enough to counter most of the falling. hello Koshka welcome to the site I hope you'll stick around. Yes I think you are right the rockets would have worked with a bit more calibration.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Feb 2, 2017 16:41:00 GMT
I had the chance to watch this episode the other day. I don't know where their researchers were getting their facts, but Panjandrum has been in the history books for over a decade, it hardly counts as recently declassified. And everything I've read has Who Me? being used as psychological warfare in the Pacific front, not European. OTOH, I think Kari could have gotten Hajile to work if she'd swapped out the rockets with slightly less powerful ones. The rockets she was using pushed the platform up slightly when they fired, which tells me they had a little too much punch. She needed rockets that weren't strong enough to lift the payload, but strong enough to counter most of the falling. hello Koshka welcome to the site I hope you'll stick around. Yes I think you are right the rockets would have worked with a bit more calibration. the person who wrote the wikipedia article on the subject did a good job. it illustrates the wobbles they had in the calibration process of the actual device. I think a good summary would be "it worked brilliantly, that one time they got it to work." en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hajileaddendum: it also links to a russian version built for an airdropped fighting vehicle that apparently worked. (it also says how it got its name)
|
|
|
Post by mrfatso on Feb 2, 2017 23:14:54 GMT
hello Koshka welcome to the site I hope you'll stick around. Yes I think you are right the rockets would have worked with a bit more calibration. the person who wrote the wikipedia article on the subject did a good job. it illustrates the wobbles they had in the calibration process of the actual device. I think a good summary would be "it worked brilliantly, that one time they got it to work." en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hajileaddendum: it also links to a russian version built for an airdropped fighting vehicle that apparently worked. (it also says how it got its name) I was referring more to Kari version in the program. Ultimately as was pointed out on the program a retro rocket landing system put a probe on Mars.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Feb 2, 2017 23:35:52 GMT
the person who wrote the wikipedia article on the subject did a good job. it illustrates the wobbles they had in the calibration process of the actual device. I think a good summary would be "it worked brilliantly, that one time they got it to work." en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hajileaddendum: it also links to a russian version built for an airdropped fighting vehicle that apparently worked. (it also says how it got its name) I was referring more to Kari version in the program. Ultimately as was pointed out on the program a retro rocket landing system put a probe on Mars. yep. I was just pointing out it was the calibration process, itself, that was the problem with the idea.
|
|
|
Post by mrfatso on Feb 3, 2017 13:52:17 GMT
I was referring more to Kari version in the program. Ultimately as was pointed out on the program a retro rocket landing system put a probe on Mars. yep. I was just pointing out it was the calibration process, itself, that was the problem with the idea. Yes I realise that now. Blame it on late night insomnia grumpiness.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Feb 3, 2017 14:24:54 GMT
yep. I was just pointing out it was the calibration process, itself, that was the problem with the idea. Yes I realise that now. Blame it on late night insomnia grumpiness. been there. but yeah, to clarify, solid fuel rockets are inconsistent enough that in cases like that, you can get one platform calibrated perfectly, and do another drop exactly the same and it will all go wrong.
|
|