User talk:SirBob42

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

 bibliomaniac 1  5  00:59, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Purpose Driven
I don't see the logic in you undoing the Criticism's section. Again, each one of these criticisms are from bloggers, etc. and are unfounded. Just as easily, there could be inserted a support section that would contain hundreds of opinions about Purpose Driven. What good would that do? This is an encyclopedia, not a place to blog. Revrac (talk) 16:32, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Johannian
Hi, I saw your note on the talk page of this article. I have nominated the article for deletion at Articles for deletion/Johannian. Thuresson 21:24, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

72 virgins
Some editors are trying this merge this article. Could you voice your opinion here on this matter? Thanks: Talk:72_Virgins --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 21:43, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

CZ 75
I've changed the tag to. It reads like a shooting magazine not a wikipedia article. I've left notes on the section that really got my attention. Tirronan 20:35, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the section and this looks good. Tirronan 22:20, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Using the copy-edit tag here is listing your user page on the list of pages needing copy-editing ! thisisace 22:18, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Project Jennifer
I just posted the following in the discussion page of the Golf Class Soviet Submarine which you edited to include references from "Red Star Rogue". I am still reading in the book, but the more that I read the more I realize exactly what this book is. I recommend you re-edit your contribution re: the results of the Glomar Explorer/Project Jennifer effort to eliminate controversial claims and inadequately supported theory.


 * I was an officer in the Pentagon in Navy Intelligence during the early 1970s with some slight knowledge of the Jennifer program at that time. I have read most of the unclassified information on the program that has seeped out into the public domain in the intervening years. I have just finished reading "Red Star Rogue" and find that my B-S detector has been ringing throughout. This book is not history, but instead is conspiracy theory and in the same category as UFO-ology. The author provides a mish-mash of fact, supposition, hypothesis, ignorance, and misdirection to lead the reader into buying into his theory. He then sets up a separate theory that the CIA has purposefully directed a dis-information cover-up that has hidden his revealed truth. Anyone not agreeing with the Red Star Rogue theory, must therefore be under the influence of the nefarious CIA's dis-information. The author uses this type of circular argument through-out the book. I recommend that this book and its claims be treated as undocumented and controversial, indeed as conspiracy theory clap-trap; and not be allowed as a reference in history or military history wikipedia articles. Gwyncann 17:25, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * In response to your discussion on the Golf II page, I have dropped the below comments in the Golf II discussion board. Your discussion of Project Jennifer is better but still utilizes Red Star Rogue's statement that almost all of K-129 was retrieved and most of the bodies were recovered.  If you read carefully how Sewell comes to this conclusion, you will realize how specious his reasoning is.  He utilizes the average number of feet that the claw could be moved per hour up and down, and divides that into the total time recorded by the Glomar Explorer at the wreck site.  Seems reasonable so far, but he does not provide time for repositioning the ship over the next section; no time for prep of the first down movement after arrival; no time for docking the claw and prep for sea after the last lift; no time for problems and mechanical breakdowns; no time for errors and inefficiencies (and fatigue of the crew); and most importantly, provides no time to disassemble and move-out of the moon-pool area, the section or sections that were successfully retrieved.  You may remember that he discussed delays in that endeavor due to the necessity to work on a section contaminated by radioactivity.   Factoring in such time requirements puts paid to the idea that the Glomar Explorer made a successful lift of five or six sections.


 * You mentioned the discrepancy between a normal crew of 83 and the list of 98 members on this last cruise of the K-129. While I have no experience with Soviet naval practices, I do know that U.S. national strategic resources (aircraft carriers and SSBNs) always attract extra personnel when they are about to deploy.  Special observers, hardware technicians, systems designers, training specialists, and officers riding for qualifications and check-out are only a few of the reasons that extra personnel appear on board prior to and during a combat deployment.  I assume that the Soviets responded in a similar manner to the unique environment of a submarine on a combat patrol to study personnel and equipment under real world conditions.


 * While there are always inconsistencies between information provided verbally from many sources, some of whom are often unqualified to provide such information but do so to appear knowledgeable and important, Sewell appears to grab every such inconsistency as a proof of conspiracy. Such is the danger of utilizing uncorroborated verbal data. It is a reporter's job to independently verify verbal claims; and research, where possible, into the written record. Sewell does the opposite. He bends facts to fit his theory; and apparently concocts data wherever such information is lacking. Two of the most glaring concoctions Sewell wrote to bolster his theory involve the idea that the missile launch attempt was conducted on the surface rather than submerged. Open sources on the internet document that the G-II submarine with the SS-N-5 SERB missile was a SUBMERGED launch system requiring the missile tubes to be flooded prior to launch. I suspect, but do not know for sure, that attempts to launch from a dry tube would damage the submarine to the point of endangering the safety of the ship and crew. Launching with a flooded tube on the surface is similarly unpalatable due to the high center of gravity and the ensuing unstable platform thus available for launch. Sewell apparently requires a surface launch scenario in order to bolster his theory with similarly specious claims that a U.S. infrared satellite detected two explosions at the time and near the location he proposes as the site of K-129's sinking. On pages 134, 158, 180 and elsewhere, Sewell asserts that U.S. intelligence satellite assets (specifically a NORAD satellite) provided information on the K-129 sinking by detecting the explosion of the missile propellant in tubes 1 and 2 on 7 Mar 1968. Page 158 states: "The Navy was notified by the North American Aerospace Defense Command that one of its satellites had identified and recorded an event in the Northern Pacific as having some of the characteristics of a Soviet Missile launch. A satellite sensor had recorded two massive surges of radiant energy when the missile fuel in the K-129's launch tubes one and two exploded. The camera's sensors were tuned to record the light spectrum created by the burning of specific chemicals known to be used in Soviet rocket fuel." This is an unqualified statement by Sewell, and demonstrateably false, misleading and ridiculous. A quick internet key word search will show that the NORAD launched its first missile detection satellites (IMEWS-1) in 6 Nov 1970, 20 months after Sewell claims NORAD resources recorded his theoretical missile explosion aboard the K-129. As a possible defense for Sewell, he might not have known that the infrared detection satellites of the time were under the control of the NRO (National Reconnaissance Office), NOT NORAD.


 * Later in the book, on page 184, Sewell conducts a discussion of intelligence satellite resources circa 1968. He discusses the CORONA PhotInt (photo intelligence) satellite as if it could have been the system that reported an explosion in the Northern Pacific in March 1968. However, this system returned its photos to earth within re-entry capsules, so photos were carefully rationed to high-interest targets. The probability of it using film on an empty northern Pacific water area is nil. He then discusses the TIROS weather satellite as a possible sensor of such an explosion (a hail-Mary pass requiring the ideas that this system 1) had such a capability; 2) was secretly connect to CIA and/or USAF customers; and 3) that this subterfuge has never come to light in the intervening 40 years). Finally he discussed the SAMOS and MIDAS systems. SAMOS satellites took pictures on film, developed the film in orbit, and transmitted TV scans of the pictures to Earth. Because the TV pictures were much blurrier than the film, SAMOS had low resolution even for its day (5–20 feet), and some authorities have claimed that SAMOS never produced useful data. Again, because each photo utilized irreplaceable satellite resources, the idea of a SAMOS satellite expending film on open ocean photography is untenable.


 * MIDAS satellites transmitted launch indication via radio links; if two MIDAS satellite picked up the same indication, launch location could be calculated. Each MIDAS satellite was stationed at a much higher altitude then CORONA or SAMOS (e.g., 2170 miles vs 200 miles), from which it could see most or all of the Soviet Union at any moment. The MIDAS satellites were designed to observe Earth in the infrared band of the electromagnetic spectrum. The goal was to detect the heat radiation (infrared light) given off by missile and rocket launches; specifically ICBM launches from Russia or China. Twelve attempts to orbit MIDAS satellites were made between February, 1960, and October, 1966. Most failed, but experience with MIDAS made possible its successor, IMEWS, and the later third generation DSP satellites. The MIDAS system was rather primitive and detection of short duration signals was never attempted; nor desired (short duration signal processing would overload the downlink bandwidth and was specifically programmed out as noise). The long-duration boost phase of an ICBM (which may exceed 10 minutes), was part of the signature of an attack profile used by MIDAS signal analysis. Attempts to detect and analyze theater range missile launches (say 400 nm or less) with their much shorter boost phase became a goal of satellite IR detection only with the third generation DSP satellites in the 1980s. The idea that the explosion of two missiles on the surface of the waters of the northern Pacific in 1968 was detected by a MIDAS and forwarded via downlink as a signal of interest, overestimates the state of the art of satellite IR detection by over 20 years.


 * In the cases of MIDAS, IMEWS and DSP satellites, the IR signature being sought is generated by the heat of the missile exhaust plume. The IR signature is a function of heat and chemistry, so the satellites were provided with detectors which covered a band of IR frequencies centered on 2.7 microns. There is nothing in open source literature to indicate that spectrographic data was part of MIDAS' signal analysis criteria for reporting targets; thus nothing to indicate that an explosion bearing such spectrography would be processed and reported by a MIDAS. Finally, an explosion confined by missile launch tubes would have little infrared similarity to a boost phase missile exhaust plume and thus would be missed by MIDAS detectors directed specifically toward detecting plume characteristics.


 * It is difficult to escape the conclusion that Sewell has populated his book with spurious data and purposefully presented his "facts" without regard to normal and traditional independent verification testing. It is tempting to conclude that Sewell's efforts were never intended to represent historical reality, but rather are the most recent example of that most troublesome form of imaginative writing: fiction masquerading as fact. Gwyncann 20:58, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Rome: Total War
Hi, could you revert those last few edits please? Mallerd 16:06, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I reverted your edits because they're POV. Consistent modification of the description of Hannibal to label him as brilliant is biased. If the reader wants to find out talented he was then they can see an assessment on his article page but we can't label him such on the RTW page. Because IPs were consistently editing this description in, this resulted in semi-protection of the article, and the admin who semi-protected the article modified the hidden text that I had inserted to highlight this. This has already gotten one editor blocked because they kept trying to keep the description biased and were ignoring warning messages issued and the hidden text. If you have issues with the description of Hannibal please discuss on the Rome: Total War talk page before reverting to the POV version, as this may be construed as biased editing on your part. Broken Sphere Msg me 16:40, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Glock 18c
FAKE TOY http://www.tokyo-marui.co.jp/products/09/g18/index.html

REAL GLOCK http://www.cybershooters.org/dgca/Glock18/box.JPG

Please don't put back that image of a toy in the Machine Pistol article again...

thanks --Caligvla (talk) 10:08, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:29, 23 November 2015 (UTC)